Pena, Jennifer, PD-1092-15

Jennifer Pena was indicted under one cause number on two offenses arising from a single incident: possession of a controlled substance (state-jail felony) and tampering with evidence (third-degree felony).
She received deferred adjudication for both counts, was later charged with violations, and a single revocation hearing was held; she pled true to violations and the court revoked probation and sentenced two concurrent two-year state‑jail terms.
The clerk entered two separate written judgments (one per count) and assessed overlapping statutory court costs in each judgment, resulting in duplicated cost assessments on a single prosecution.
Pena challenged the duplicate costs, arguing statutes that authorize costs triggered "on conviction of an offense" should not require multiplicative assessments when multiple convictions arise from one consolidated prosecution and no duplicate services were incurred.
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments as modified, holding the statutory phrase "a person convicted of an offense" unambiguous and permitting assessment of costs for each conviction.

Issue	Pena's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether statutes authorizing mandatory court costs that apply to a person "convicted of an offense" require multiplicative assessments when multiple convictions occur in one consolidated cause	The phrase is ambiguous as applied; costs are compensatory for judicial overhead and should be assessed once per proceeding unless additional services were actually incurred	The statutory language refers to conviction of an offense and is plain; where two convictions resulted, costs may be assessed for each	Court of Appeals: statute unambiguous; costs may be assessed in both judgments (affirmed as modified)
Whether trial court denied due process by arbitrarily refusing to consider full range of punishment at revocation hearing	Pena argued the judge cut off mitigating testimony and thus failed to consider full punishment range	State argued no preservation and that judge considered evidence	Court of Appeals: no due-process violation; presumption of impartiality not rebutted (issue overruled)
Whether appellate court should reform judgments to correct clerical errors and reflect oral pronouncement	Pena sought reformation to correct statutory citations, remove fines inconsistent with oral pronouncement, and eliminate duplicated costs	State did not oppose most reforms	Court of Appeals: modified judgments to correct errors consistent with oral pronouncement; declined to add specific findings of which violation supported revocation

Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (court costs are intended as nonpunitive recoupment of judicial overhead)
Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (statutory ambiguity where statute provides no guidance on application in a specific circumstance)
Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (consideration of statutory context when resolving ambiguity)
State v. Crook, 248 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (legislative purpose of consolidating offenses to conserve resources; multiple convictions treated as single conviction for sentencing purposes)
Brown v. State, 98 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (statute found ambiguous where silent on a key definitional issue)