Eian Tilor Hurlburt v. State
506 S.W.3d 199
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Eian Tilor Hurlburt pled guilty to four separate indictments for aggravated sexual assault of a child; each count resulted in a 20-year prison sentence to run concurrently.
- The four cases were heard together at Hurlburt’s request and with the State’s consent; pleas and punishment were processed in a single proceeding spanning multiple days.
- The trial court assessed $354 in court costs in each conviction, plus a $2.00 extradition fee and a $6.00 jury reimbursement fee in each judgment.
- Hurlburt argued (1) article 102.073 prohibits assessing court costs more than once when multiple convictions are obtained in a single criminal action, (2) the extradition fee has no statutory basis, and (3) the jury reimbursement fee is limited to $4.00.
- The State conceded error as to the extradition and jury-reimbursement fees; the parties disputed the meaning of “in a single criminal action” under article 102.073(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hurlburt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether article 102.073(a) permits assessing court costs for each conviction when multiple convictions result from a single criminal action | The phrase “in a single criminal action” refers to each separate case/filing instrument; costs may be assessed per conviction | Because allegations/evidence of multiple offenses were presented in one trial/plea proceeding, costs may be assessed only once | Court applied Ex parte Pharr definition: when allegations/evidence of multiple offenses are presented in a single trial/plea, costs may be assessed only once; reversed costs in three of four judgments (sustained) |
| Whether the $2.00 extradition fee is statutorily authorized | Argued implicitly that fee could be assessed | Hurlburt: no statutory authorization for the extradition fee | State conceded; court found no statutory basis and deleted the $2.00 fee in the remaining judgment (sustained) |
| Whether the jury reimbursement fee may be $6.00 per conviction | Argued fee was permissible as assessed | Hurlburt: statute limits jury reimbursement fee to $4.00 | State conceded; court reduced the jury reimbursement fee to $4.00 in the remaining judgment (sustained) |
| Whether Pharr’s definition of “single criminal action” applies to article 102.073(a) when the statutory text does not include “same criminal episode” | The State urged a different construction tied to individual cases/filings | Hurlburt argued Pharr’s construction applies (single trial/plea proceeding) | Court concluded Pharr’s phrasing applies and the Legislature was presumed to use the phrase with its settled legal meaning; applied Pharr here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Pharr, 897 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defines “single criminal action” as allegations/evidence of multiple offenses presented in a single trial or plea proceeding)
- LaPorte v. State, 840 S.W.2d 412 (Tex. Crim. App.) (precedent rejecting interpretation tying “single criminal action” to separate filings)
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App.) (preservation not required for certain cost-assessment errors on appeal)
- Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. Crim. App.) (statutory interpretation principles regarding legislative awareness of prior constructions)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Synatzske, 438 S.W.3d 39 (Tex.) (primary objective of statutory construction is to give effect to legislative intent)
- Awadelkariem v. State, 974 S.W.2d 721 (Tex. Crim. App.) (rules on applying prior judicial construction to statutory language)
- Koy v. Schneider, 221 S.W. 880 (Tex.) (presumption that legislature uses settled legal meanings)