Justin David Waddell v. State
02-14-00372-CR
Tex. App.Dec 3, 2015Background
- Justin David Waddell pleaded guilty to DWI with felony repetition; the trial court suspended a 10-year sentence and placed him on 10 years’ community supervision.
- The trial-court judgment assessed court costs including $34 labeled "DNA Testing-Pro" and $100 labeled "Emerg Med Serv."
- Waddell filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled by operation of law, then appealed contesting those two costs as facially unconstitutional.
- He argued both costs are effectively taxes that violate the Texas Constitution’s separation-of-powers provision because they are not "necessary or incidental" to a criminal trial.
- Waddell did not raise these separation-of-powers or facial-constitutional arguments in the trial court or in his motion for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of $34 DNA-testing court cost (art. 102.020(a)(3)) | Waddell: cost is a facially unconstitutional tax; not necessary/incidental to trial; violates separation of powers | State: cost authorized by statute; challenge not preserved because not raised below | Not preserved for review; point overruled |
| Legality of $100 emergency-medical-services cost (art. 102.0185(a)) | Waddell: same separation-of-powers/facial-tax challenge as to the $100 cost | State: same preservation argument — issue not raised in trial court or motion for new trial | Not preserved for review; point overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Carson, 159 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942) (earlier requirement that statutory court costs be “necessary” or “incidental” to trial)
- Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (rejected Carson’s necessity/incidental requirement)
- Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (defendant may not raise a facial constitutional challenge for the first time on appeal)
- Everitt v. State, 407 S.W.3d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (preservation rule: timely request/objection required to preserve complaint)
- Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (appellate courts should not address unpreserved issues)
- Ibenyenwa v. State, 367 S.W.3d 420 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2012) (constitutional issues, including facial challenges, can be forfeited by failing to raise them below)