Armin Glenn Ingram v. State
503 S.W.3d 745
Tex. App.2016Background
- Armin Glenn Ingram was indicted on seven counts including continuous sexual abuse of a child (CSA) and indecency with a child by contact; a jury convicted him of CSA and indecency.
- Jury assessed punishment: life for CSA; 20 years and $10,000 fine for indecency.
- The CSA judgment included $669 in court costs (bill of costs separately filed), which listed a $133 consolidated court cost and $100 for “Child Abuse Prv.”
- On appeal Ingram argued (1) the trial court erred by denying a unanimity jury instruction for the CSA charge and (2) the statutes authorizing the consolidated court cost and the child‑abuse‑prevention cost are facially unconstitutional under separation of powers.
- Appellant did not raise any substantive appellate argument challenging the indecency conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury must unanimously agree on which specific acts constitute the two or more acts of CSA (unanimity instruction) | Ingram: specific alleged acts are separate elements requiring unanimous jury findings; denial of unanimity instruction violated due process | State: section 21.02(d) allows non‑specific unanimity as to which specific acts; acts are manner/means, not separate elements | Court: Affirmed — specific acts are not separate elements; trial court did not err in charge (unanimity requirement satisfied under §21.02(d)) |
| Whether statutes authorizing (a) consolidated court cost and (b) child‑abuse‑prevention cost are facially unconstitutional (separation of powers) | Ingram: statutes effectively make judiciary a tax collector and allocate funds to uses not related to criminal‑justice administration; thus facially invalid | State: statutes authorize costs tied to criminal justice administration; challenge may be raised on appeal because costs were not imposed in open court or itemized in judgment | Court: Affirmed — appellant failed to show no circumstance exists where statutes would be constitutional; both costs withstand facial challenge as related to criminal‑justice administration |
| Whether indecency conviction should be reversed | Ingram: (no appellate argument presented) | State: n/a | Court: Affirmed indecency conviction (no challenge raised) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pollock v. State, 405 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013) (specific acts in CSA are not separate elements for unanimity)
- Render v. State, 316 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (same legal principle regarding CSA unanimity)
- Martin v. State, 335 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (same principle; unanimity not required as to specific acts)
- Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (burden and standard for facial challenge to court‑cost statutes)
- Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (facial challenge analysis looks to how statute is written, not to how funds are actually disbursed)
- London v. State, 490 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (defendant may raise certain cost challenges on appeal when costs were not imposed in open court or itemized in judgment)
- McAfee v. State, 467 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (upholding consolidated court cost against facial challenge)