Everett Gray v. the State of Texas, 05-20-00772-CR

Everett Gray pled guilty (open pleas) to two felonies: unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (third‑degree) and illegal barter/investment (first‑degree, with enhancements pleaded true).
Factual basis at sentencing: Gray sold guns with filed‑down serial numbers, agreed to sell one kilo of cocaine to an undercover detective posing as a cartel associate, and was arrested in a car with a pistol and $13,000; he was on parole at the time.
At sentencing Gray and several witnesses urged rehabilitation and probation/deferred adjudication; his parole officer supported a second chance; defense requested ISF or community supervision.
Trial court imposed 10 years (firearm) and 20 years (illegal barter); both judgments assessed $249 in court costs.
On appeal Gray argued the prison sentences conflicted with the Penal Code’s rehabilitative objective (§ 1.02) and challenged duplicate assessment of court costs; the court of appeals affirmed sentences but deleted the redundant $249 assessment in the firearm case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing to prison (vs. community supervision) abused discretion as contrary to Penal Code objectives (rehabilitation)	Gray: prison undermines Penal Code §1.02 rehabilitative goal; evidence supported rehabilitation and community supervision	State: Gray failed to preserve error and, on merits, sentencing within statutory range was appropriate given public‑safety and deterrence concerns	Error preserved; no abuse of discretion — trial court reasonably weighed rehabilitation against deterrence, criminal history, parole status, and dangerous conduct; sentences affirmed
Whether court erred by assessing court costs in both judgments (duplicate assessment)	Gray: costs should be assessed only once in a single criminal action; delete the firearm case assessment	State: agreed with Gray on this point	Sustained — under Art. 102.073 trial court may assess each cost only once and must use highest offense category; delete $249 from firearm judgment

Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (error preservation is a systemic requirement)
Douds v. State, 472 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (preservation reviewed in context of entire record)
Bryant v. State, 391 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (no magic words required to preserve complaint if basis is evident)
Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (trial court has broad discretion within statutory sentencing range)
Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellant need not object at trial to challenge assessed costs on appeal)
Hurlburt v. State, 506 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016) (same: preservation not required to challenge assessed costs on appeal)