Carlton Charles Penright v. State, 477 S.W.3d 494

Carlton Penright was indicted for aggravated sexual assault; jury convicted him of the lesser offense of sexual assault and sentenced him to 15 years.
Trial court initially assessed $534 in court costs; a nunc pro tunc judgment reduced costs to $484, including a $133 consolidated court cost under Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 133.102 and a $15 Sheriff’s fee.
Penright raised three issues on appeal: (1) § 133.102’s $133 fee is unconstitutional under Texas separation of powers (facial challenge); (2) insufficient evidence supported the $15 Sheriff’s fee; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by setting but not initially holding a hearing on his post-trial motions.
The court applied the standard for facial challenges (challenger must show no circumstance in which statute is valid) and presumed statute validity.
Relying on Peraza’s analytic framework, the court examined statutory allocations of the § 133.102 proceeds to determine whether they serve legitimate criminal-justice purposes.
The appellate court affirmed: it upheld § 133.102 as capable of constitutional application, found the $15 Sheriff’s fee supported by the record, and held the post-trial hearing issue moot because the trial court subsequently held a hearing and the record from that hearing was considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of § 133.102 consolidated $133 court cost	§ 133.102 is a judicially collected tax that funds programs "neither necessary nor incidental" to trials, violating separation of powers (relies on Ex parte Carson)	Statute can operate constitutionally because allocated funds are used for legitimate criminal-justice purposes; Peraza allows costs that fund administration of criminal justice	Affirmed — facial challenge fails: interconnected statutes allocate nearly all proceeds to legitimate criminal-justice purposes, so statute can be applied constitutionally
Sufficiency of evidence for $15 Sheriff’s fee	No sheriff’s fee record in appellate record; thus no evidentiary support for assessing $15	Clerk’s record contains a J.I.M.S. Cost Bill Assessment showing $5 commitment, $5 release, $5 arrest-without-warrant fees; review is for a basis in record, not traditional Jackson sufficiency	Affirmed — evidence in record (J.I.M.S. cost bill) supports the $15 Sheriff’s fee
Trial court’s alleged refusal to hold hearing on motion for new trial/motion in arrest of judgment	Court scheduled but did not hold hearing, thus abused discretion	Appellate court abated, trial court later held a hearing and record was considered on appeal	Overruled/moot — hearing was held post-abatement and the appellate court considered that record

City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443 (2015) (explains facial-challenge concept and burden)
State v. Rosseau, 396 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (challenger bears burden to prove statute unconstitutional)
Ex parte Carson, 159 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942) (held certain court-fee statutes invalid when fees were not related to trials)
Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (addresses sufficiency review for court-cost assessments and accepts electronic cost records)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence supporting court costs)
Luquis v. State, 72 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (favor constitutional construction when possible)