Nakeldrick Curtis Erskine v. State
12-16-00186-CR
| Tex. | Dec 5, 2016Background
- Appellant Nakeldrick Erskine pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver 4–200 grams of cocaine (first-degree felony) and received 40 years' confinement; appeal timely filed.
- At sentencing the court ordered payment of $393.00 in court costs and an order to withdraw those costs from Erskine’s TDCJ inmate trust fund.
- The District Clerk’s bill of costs matched the $393.00 figure but included two $25 warrant fees ($50) and a $34 DNA testing fee for probationers.
- Erskine contends the record shows an on‑sight arrest (no warrant) and that he was not placed on probation, so the $50 in warrant fees and the $34 DNA probation fee are unsupported.
- Appellant asks the appellate court to modify the judgment and the withdrawal order to reflect the correct total of $309.00 in court costs (i.e., remove the $84 of improperly assessed fees).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Erskine) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment improperly assesses certain court costs | The bill of costs totaling $393 is proper and should be enforced as assessed | The $40 county warrant fee, $10 state warrant fee, and $34 DNA-for-probation fee are not supported by the record (on‑sight arrest; no probation) and therefore should be removed | Court should modify judgment to remove unsupported fees and reduce costs to $309 (appellant seeks modification) |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial court must impose statutory court costs at sentencing)
- Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (court costs are not punitive and need not be orally pronounced)
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (review focuses on whether a basis exists for assessed costs)
- Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (defendant not obligated to pay costs until a certified bill is made part of record)
- Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (standards for reviewing cost-withdrawal matters)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal-sufficiency standard for evidence)
- Howell v. State, 175 S.W.3d 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sufficiency review applied to cost and fee orders)