Jermaine Earvin Johnson v. State, 562 S.W.3d 168

Jermaine Earvin Johnson was indicted for aggravated robbery; indictment returned by the 209th District Court grand jury and filed with the Harris County District Clerk in the 263rd District Court where the State’s complaint was filed.
Johnson was tried in the 263rd District Court, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to 27 years’ imprisonment. The bill of costs included a $40 jury fee under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 102.004(a).
Johnson argued on appeal that the 263rd lacked jurisdiction because the indictment was presented by a grand jury impaneled by the 209th, not the 263rd.
He also raised a facial constitutional challenge to article 102.004(a) under the Texas separation-of-powers clause (claiming the courts became tax collectors) and argued the jury fee violated the right to trial by jury.
The court held jurisdiction was proper because (1) all Harris County district courts share original felony jurisdiction and indictments presented to the county district clerk may be filed in any competent district court, and (2) Johnson waived any non-jurisdictional defect by not raising it at trial.
On rehearing the court (majority) upheld article 102.004(a): it found interconnected statutory provisions (Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code §113.004) require jury-fee funds to be kept in a fund for jury-related claims, satisfying Peraza’s “legitimate criminal justice purpose” test; it also rejected the jury-trial right challenge (no chilling or pre-trial bar shown).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Jurisdiction over indictment filed after presentment by a different district court's grand jury	Grand jury empaneled by 209th had no authority to present to 263rd; therefore 263rd lacked jurisdiction	All Harris County district courts share original felony jurisdiction; indictments presented to county clerk may be filed in any competent district court; failure to object below waived non-jurisdictional defects	Court: 263rd had jurisdiction; any non-jurisdictional complaint waived; overruled issue
Separation-of-powers facial challenge to art. 102.004(a) ($40 jury fee)	Fee makes courts into tax gatherers because statute does not specify legitimate criminal-justice uses; facially invalid	Jury fees are governed by interconnected statutes (Loc. Gov’t Code §113.004) that require jury fees be placed in a first-class fund for jury-related claims, a legitimate criminal justice purpose	Court: facial challenge failed under Peraza; article 102.004(a) is not facially unconstitutional
Right to trial by jury (art. I, §15) — facial and as-applied (indigent defendants)	Imposition of fee penalizes exercise of jury-trial right and dissuades defendants from choosing a jury	Fee is assessed after conviction; numerous constitutional rights may entail costs; no showing the fee chilled Johnson’s right or prevented access	Court: fee does not violate right to jury trial facially or as applied to Johnson; issue overruled

Ex parte Edone, 740 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (grand jury is impaneled by district judge and operates as a separate, independent body whose presentments are secret)
State v. Dotson, 224 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (an indictment is "presented" when acted on by the grand jury and received by the court; district clerk file stamp is strong evidence of presentment and vests jurisdiction)
Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (facial test for court-cost statutes: valid if statutory scheme allocates funds to be expended for a legitimate criminal justice purpose)
Salinas v. State, 523 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (upheld Peraza framework; invalidated fee portions that fund non-criminal-justice purposes because statute did not direct funds to legitimate criminal justice uses)
Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1974) (permitting recoupment statutes that require convicted defendants to repay reasonable defense costs upon later ability to pay; cited for the proposition that costs can attend constitutional rights)