495 S.W.3d 583
Tex. App.2016Background
- On March 29, 2013, M.W. was accosted, threatened with a gun, forced to drive to ATMs to withdraw cash, sexually assaulted, and abandoned; appellant Justin Tirrell Williams was arrested and tried.
- A jury convicted Williams of three first‑degree felonies arising from the single criminal episode: aggravated robbery (cause 1387897), aggravated kidnapping (cause 1387898), and aggravated sexual assault (cause 1387899); punishments were 40, 60, and 99 years respectively, with a $10,000 fine in each case and concurrent sentences.
- Williams challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence for the aggravated robbery conviction, (2) an erroneous entry in the written judgment for cause 1387898, and (3) various assessments and listings of court costs and fines across the three judgments and bills of cost.
- The court reviewed evidence (victim testimony that appellant took her bag, phone, wallet, directed ATM withdrawals, left her without possessions, and left in her car) under the Jackson v. Virginia standard and concluded circumstantial evidence supported intent to obtain and maintain control of property.
- The court agreed the judgment for cause 1387898 misidentified the convicted offense and reformed it to reflect aggravated kidnapping; it also found multiple duplicative court costs and improperly included fines in the bills of cost and reformed the judgments accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery | State: victim testimony and actions show intent to obtain/maintain control of car, phone, wallet and that money withdrawn came from victim’s cards | Williams: no evidence he intended to keep the items or that withdrawn cash belonged to M.W. | Evidence sufficient; jury could infer intent from conduct; conviction affirmed (1387897). |
| Erroneous offense listed in judgment (1387898) | State: judgment should reflect jury verdict of aggravated kidnapping | Williams: judgment lists aggravated robbery instead of kidnapping; requests reformation | Judgment reformed to reflect aggravated kidnapping as convicted offense. |
| Multiple assessments of court costs across three convictions | Williams: art. 102.073 limits assessment of each court cost/fee to once in single criminal action | State: challenges procedural vehicle but concedes duplicate assessments were error | Court holds costs may be challenged on direct appeal; duplicates deleted and costs allocated once per art. 102.073 (assessed in lowest cause number 1387897). |
| Inclusion of fines in bills of cost and specific $5 release fee | Williams: fines are punitive and should not be listed as costs; argues $5 release fee improper because he was not released from jail | State: fines were entered in each judgment; release fee reflects sheriff’s transfer to TDCJ | Court deletes fines from bills of cost (defendant remains liable for single $10,000 fine in 1387897); $5 release fee upheld because sheriff released defendant to prison authorities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (confirming Jackson standard is sole sufficiency standard)
- Banks v. State, 471 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (intent to steal may be inferred from conduct)
- French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (appellate courts may reform judgments to make the record speak the truth)
- Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (appellate modification of judgments to delete erroneous court costs)
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (defendant may challenge imposition/basis of court costs on direct appeal)
- Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (distinguishing fines as punishment from court costs as compensatory)
- Crook v. State, 248 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (concurrent sentences apply to fines imposed for offenses arising from same criminal episode)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sufficient evidentiary predicate required to assess costs)