Background

• Armando Hurtado was convicted by a jury of felony theft (value $2,500–$30,000) and sentenced to 20 years; the judgment assessed $319 in court costs, including a $133 consolidated court cost under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 133.102(a)(1).
• Section 133.102(e) directs the comptroller to allocate the $133 among fourteen specific accounts by percentage.
• The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Salinas held two of those allocated accounts (subsections (e)(1) and (e)(6)) served noncriminal purposes and rendered § 133.102 facially unconstitutional; it reformed the consolidated fee to $119.93 and limited retrospective relief.
• The Court of Criminal Appeals stated its holding applied only to defendants who had timely raised the claim in a pending petition for discretionary review as of the opinion date; otherwise the holding was prospective from mandate date. The court noted the Legislature could cure the defect by redirecting the funds to legitimate criminal-justice purposes.
• The Legislature amended § 133.102(e) before the Salinas mandate issued, removing the problematic subsections and reallocating their percentages to another account effective June 15, 2017.
• Hurtado argued he raised the same claim and sought the same relief as in Salinas, asking this court to apply the Salinas remedy to his consolidated court cost assessment.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Salinas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (held parts of § 133.102(e) allocated funds to noncriminal purposes, rendering those allocations unconstitutional and limited retrospective relief)