Michael Don Denton v. State
478 S.W.3d 848
Tex. App.2015Background
- Michael Don Denton was indicted for delivering controlled substances; he pled guilty and the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt (no appeal from that order).
- The State later moved to adjudicate guilt; the trial court granted the motion and Denton was convicted and sentenced.
- Denton and his counsel initially perfected appeals but then moved to dismiss; this court dismissed the appeals.
- Denton pursued multiple habeas petitions (state and federal); a federal district court granted relief, ordering that Denton be afforded an out‑of‑time appeal with counsel.
- Following the federal order, Denton (through appointed counsel) filed notices of appeal to this court; he nevertheless challenged this court’s jurisdiction and raised two substantive claims concerning a $2,000 fine and a constitutional takings challenge to a statutory fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Jurisdiction to hear the out‑of‑time appeal | Federal habeas order granting out‑of‑time appeal vests Texas court with jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal | Court lacks jurisdiction despite federal order | Court has jurisdiction; appellant’s jurisdictional objection overruled |
| 2. $2,000 fine alleged to be part of sentence | Denton contends he should not have to pay a $2,000 fine (and seeks relief for it) | The fine was not imposed at adjudication/sentencing and is not owed as part of the conviction | No fine was imposed at adjudication/sentencing; issue overruled as meritless now though complaint should have been raised on appeal from the deferred‑adjudication order |
| 3. Reimbursement for a $2,000 fine paid earlier | Denton seeks reimbursement for a fine described as "paid" in costs that was imposed at the time of deferred adjudication | State notes fine related to earlier deferred‑adjudication order and cites procedural default | Complaint is untimely on direct appeal from final adjudication; should have been raised after the deferred‑adjudication order (Riles control) |
| 4. Takings Clause challenge to statutory fee (Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code §133.102(e)(7)) | Denton argues the fee is an unconstitutional taking of property under Tex. Const. art. I, §17 | State contends issue not preserved; even on review, assessment of the fee as court costs is not a taking | Issue may be raised on appeal; fee assessment as court cost is not an eminent‑domain taking and thus not within the Takings Clause; claim overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Carmell v. State, 331 S.W.3d 450 (recognizing federal habeas may secure an out‑of‑time appeal)
- Passmore v. State, 617 S.W.2d 682 (discussing federal habeas‑granted out‑of‑time appeals)
- Riles v. State, 452 S.W.3d 333 (procedural bar: complaints about conditions of deferred adjudication must be raised from that order)
- Cardenas v. State, 423 S.W.3d 396 (convicted defendants may object to court costs for first time on appeal)
- State ex rel. Pan Am. Prod. v. Texas City, 303 S.W.2d 780 (Texas Takings Clause construed as relating to eminent domain, not general tax/fee levies)