London, Joshua, PD-0480-15

Appellant Joshua London pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine (1–4 grams) and was sentenced to 25 years; the reporter was waived for plea and sentencing.
Judgment was entered May 3, 2013; a bill of costs listing a $35 "Summoning Witness/Mileage" charge was not prepared until May 22, 2013 (19 days after judgment).
The record does not show the cost bill was provided to London or counsel, nor whether the $35 charge related to State or defense subpoenas.
London challenged the $35 sheriff’s/summoning witness fee as unconstitutional as-applied to an indigent defendant; he raised the challenge on appeal, not at trial.
The First Court of Appeals affirmed, holding London waived an as-applied constitutional challenge by not raising it at trial; London sought discretionary review from the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an as-applied constitutional challenge to art. 102.011(a)(3) (summoning witness fee) may be raised for the first time on appeal where the bill of costs was issued after judgment	London: The cost bill was not produced until 19 days after judgment and never provided to him, so he lacked opportunity to object; under Landers, Johnson, and Cardenas such challenges or challenges to assessed costs can be raised on appeal	State/First Ct. of Appeals: As-applied constitutional claims must be preserved at trial; Curry bars raising such challenges for first time on appeal; Johnson did not overrule Curry	First Court of Appeals held the claim waived for failure to raise it in trial court; London asks CCA to reverse and remand for merits consideration

Landers v. State, 402 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (fees not imposed in open court and not provided to appellant may be challenged on direct appeal)
Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (challenge to factual basis for assessed statutory costs may be raised for first time on appeal)
Cardenas v. State, 423 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (convicted defendants have constructive notice of statutory mandatory costs and may challenge assessed costs on appeal or via art. 103.008)
Sturdivant v. State, 445 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (on remand applying Landers: appellant not given opportunity to object to post-judgment itemized costs and need not file bill of exception)
Ramirez v. State, 410 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (interpreting art. 102.011 to require $5 fee each time a witness is summoned)
Rylander v. Caldwell, 23 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (art. 103.008 remedies errors in cost calculation but does not provide forum for constitutional challenge to statutory costs)