Hawkins v. State, 551 S.W.3d 764

Appellant Billy Hawkins pled guilty to possession of <1 gram of methamphetamine and was sentenced to six months in state jail and assessed $349 in court costs, including a $133 consolidated fee.
The consolidated fee is governed by Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 133.102, which apportions percentages of the fee to multiple state accounts (including abused children's counseling, comprehensive rehabilitation, and law enforcement officers standards and education).
Hawkins challenged § 133.102 as facially unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution's Separation of Powers Clause, arguing the allocations convert courts into tax collectors and fund non-criminal-justice purposes.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Salinas v. State held that allocating funds to the "comprehensive rehabilitation" and "abused children's counseling" accounts violates the Separation of Powers Clause, but limited that ruling's retroactivity.
This court follows Salinas: it holds the same two allocations unconstitutional, upholds the allocation to the law enforcement officers standards and education account, and declines to reduce Hawkins' assessed fee because Salinas is not retroactive to his case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 133.102 is facially unconstitutional under Texas Separation of Powers	§ 133.102 forces courts to collect fees that fund non-"legitimate criminal justice purposes" (comprehensive rehabilitation; abused children's counseling) and thus usurps executive power	Statutory allocations fund legitimate criminal-justice purposes and are proper; fees were properly imposed	Court sustains challenge as to allocations to comprehensive rehabilitation and abused children's counseling (unconstitutional), but rejects challenge as to law enforcement officers standards & education allocation (constitutional)
Whether Salinas' holding requires reduction of fees assessed before that opinion	Hawkins contends Salinas should apply to his case so the unconstitutional portions of the fee be struck	State relies on Salinas' limited retroactivity holding and directs courts not to modify judgments in cases not covered by Salinas' retroactivity rule	Court follows Salinas' retroactivity limits and declines to reduce Hawkins' consolidated fee; affirms judgment

Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (fee apportionments valid only if they serve a "legitimate criminal justice purpose")
Ingram v. State, 503 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2016) (upheld allocation to law enforcement officers standards and education account)
Salinas v. State, 523 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (struck allocations to comprehensive rehabilitation and abused children's counseling; limited retroactivity)
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (framework for retroactivity analysis of constitutional rulings)
Taylor v. State, 10 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (states may apply Stovall for retroactivity under state law)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (federal retroactivity rule; distinguished for state-law retroactivity analysis)