Damonte Bonds v. State
503 S.W.3d 622
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Damonte Bonds pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to seven years’ confinement.
- The trial court assessed $259.00 in court costs, including $13.06 designated for rehabilitation services.
- Bonds asserted two challenges on appeal: (1) he was not "provided" a written bill of costs as required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 103.001, and (2) assessment of costs under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 133.102 (including funding rehabilitation) effects an unconstitutional taking.
- The record included a written bill of costs dated August 10, 2015 (clerk’s record p.65), which Bonds acknowledged seeing.
- The court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and considered preservation-of-error issues for the constitutional challenge in light of recent precedent from the Fourteenth Court (Bowden).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bonds) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bonds was "provided" a bill of costs under art. 103.001, making costs payable | He was not provided a written bill as required, so costs are not payable | A written bill dated Aug. 10, 2015 appears in the record and Bonds has seen it, satisfying the statute | The bill was provided (made available/supplied); issue overruled |
| Whether assessment of court costs under Local Gov’t Code § 133.102 (including funds for rehabilitation) is an unconstitutional taking under U.S. and Texas Constitutions | Using court costs to fund rehabilitation is a taking of private property for public use without just compensation | Assessment of court costs does not constitute a taking; prior authority supports no taking | Overruled; assessment is not a taking |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 253 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (statutory interpretation and de novo review of legal questions)
- Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (use of statutory text to determine legislative intent)
- Clinton v. State, 354 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (construing unambiguous statutes according to plain meaning)
- London v. State, 490 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (addressing preservation and challenges to court costs)