Orlando Salinas v. State, 14-12-00378-CR

Orlando Salinas was convicted by jury of felony injury to an elderly person and sentenced to five years; the judgment included $304 in court costs, including a $133 consolidated court cost under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code §133.102.
Salinas filed motions (new trial and arrest of judgment) arguing the mandatory $133 consolidated court cost is a tax and facially unconstitutional because many designated recipients are not "necessary or incidental" to court functions.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals originally rejected the facial challenge, finding Salinas failed to show the statute is invalid in all applications and that severability could allow collection of portions that are legitimate.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review, reversed, and remanded, instructing the court to decide whether §133.102 is unconstitutional on its face based solely on the statute’s text, without considering severability or evidence of how funds are actually spent.
The State, on remand, argues Peraza v. State controls: court-cost allocations survive facial attack if the statute directs funds to "legitimate criminal justice purposes" related to administration of the criminal justice system; under §133.102(e) each listed recipient fits that definition, so the statute is constitutional.

Issue	Salinas' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether §133.102 is facially unconstitutional as an impermissible tax	§133.102 forces courts to collect a mandatory $133 that funds programs not necessary to court functions, so it operates as a tax in all applications	The statute allocates funds to enumerated accounts that serve legitimate criminal-justice purposes; facial review must consider the statute as written, and §133.102 is constitutional	Court of Criminal Appeals directed remand to decide under Peraza framework; State argues statute is constitutional because allocations are "legitimate criminal justice purposes"
Proper standard for facial challenge	Not addressed separately by Salinas beyond asserting facial invalidity	Face-value challenge requires showing statute "always operates unconstitutionally"; court should look to statute's text not actual disbursements	CCA rejected the Fourteenth Court’s reliance on severability and on evidence of actual fund usage; applied Peraza standard that statute must be unconstitutional in all possible applications to be facially invalid

Ex parte Carson, 159 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942) (historic "necessary or incidental" test for court costs)
LeCroy v. Hanlon, 713 S.W.2d 335 (Tex. 1986) (discussion of taxes vs. fees in court-cost context)
Salinas v. State, 426 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (Fourteenth Court of Appeals opinion addressing facial challenge and severability)
State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (principle that facial challenges consider statute as written)
State v. Rosseau, 396 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard that a statute is facially invalid only if it always operates unconstitutionally)