Robert Earl Adams v. State
431 S.W.3d 832
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Robert Earl Adams pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (felony) and true to enhancement; punishment assessed at 15 years and court costs of $294.
- Adams appealed only the $294 court-cost assessment, arguing no bill of costs or evidence supports that amount and asserting due-process defects.
- The Fourteenth Court of Appeals initially deleted the specified cost amount based on its precedent, but the Court of Criminal Appeals shortly thereafter issued Johnson v. State, which changed the controlling law.
- On rehearing the appellate court applied Johnson (and related Cardenas authority) to evaluate whether there is a "basis in the record" for the assessed amount rather than requiring evidentiary proof at trial.
- The court took judicial notice of mandatory statutory cost items and the record facts (warrantless arrest, two commitments/releases, felony under Health & Safety ch. 481) and concluded those mandatory costs provide a basis for the $294 assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Adams) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence/basis in the record to support the $294 court costs assessed in the judgment | No bill of costs or other record evidence supports the $294; assessment therefore improper | Under Johnson, appellate review asks whether a basis for the costs exists in the record (not whether proof was offered at trial); statutes and record facts can provide that basis | Held: Affirmed — judicial notice of mandatory cost statutes plus recorded facts yields a basis for $294 |
| Whether challenge to assessed costs is ripe | Not ripe because costs are not payable until a written bill is produced | Challenge is ripe; judgment can be acted upon and collection may occur (TDJC withdrawals), so appellate review is proper | Held: Challenge is ripe under Johnson; review permitted |
| Whether absence of a bill of costs violates due process or denies opportunity to be heard | Lack of itemized bill prevents meaningful challenge and notice; possible attorney-fee costs could be hidden | Under Johnson/Cardenas, defendants have constructive notice of mandatory statutes, can challenge on direct appeal, and may pursue post-judgment correction under art. 103.008 | Held: No due-process violation under controlling precedent |
| Whether appellate court must direct clerk to prepare a bill of costs during appeal | Adams implied the court should require a bill for clarity | Johnson allows appellate courts to order preparation of a bill during appeal but does not make it mandatory when judicial notice and record facts suffice | Held: Not required here because judicial notice + record provided a basis for the assessed amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (establishes that appellate review asks whether there is a basis in the record for assessed costs, permits judicial notice of mandatory-cost statutes, and treats certain clerk printouts as bills of costs)
- Cardenas v. State, 423 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (confirms that defendants have constructive notice of mandatory-cost statutes and may challenge costs on direct appeal and via art. 103.008 post-judgment motion)