Damon Markieth Asberry v. State, 08-15-00058-CR

Damon Markieth Asberry was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child (Count I) and two counts of indecency with a child (Counts II–III); sentences run concurrently.
The judgment for Count I included a $250 DNA testing fee authorized by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 102.020, with statutory allocations to state highway and criminal justice planning funds.
Asberry argued on appeal that the DNA fee is a facially unconstitutional tax under the Carson standard because its authorized uses are not necessary or incidental to a criminal trial.
The State and the court treated the issue as a facial challenge to Article 102.020 as applied to court costs.
The appellate court held Asberry failed to preserve the constitutional challenge by not raising it in the trial court and also found Peraza v. State dispositive.
The court affirmed the convictions and the imposition of the DNA testing fee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Article 102.020 DNA testing fee is a valid court cost or an unconstitutional tax under Ex Parte Carson	The fee is a tax because its uses are not necessary or incidental to trial (Carson standard)	Fee is a valid court cost; the challenge was not preserved and Peraza rejects Carson-only test	Affirmed: challenge forfeited for failing to raise below; Peraza controls and rejects Carson-only facial invalidation

Ex parte Carson, 159 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App.) (law library fee invalid as a court cost under a necessity/incidental-to-trial standard)
Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (rejecting Carson-only test; upholding Article 102.020 fees as permissible costs related to recoupment of judicial-resource expenditures)