Ruben Lee Allen v. State
570 S.W.3d 795
Tex. App.2018Background
- Ruben Lee Allen was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 25 years; the judgment assessed court costs including a $200 "Summoning Witness/Mileage" fee under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 102.011(a)(3), (b).
- Article 102.011(a)(3) and (b) impose $5 per witness summoned and 29¢ per mile for officer mileage, but the statute is silent as to the specific fund or dedicated use for proceeds.
- The Office of Court Administration reports most collections remain with the county general fund (or a percentage to state general revenue), meaning proceeds are not statutorily earmarked for a defined criminal-justice purpose.
- Allen challenges the fee: (1) facially as violating the Texas Constitution’s Separation of Powers (arguing the fee operates as an unconstitutional tax collected by courts), and (2) as-applied for violation of compulsory process/confrontation rights.
- The dissenting justice applies Salinas/Peraza precedent and would hold the statute facially unconstitutional and delete the $200 fee from the judgment; the majority disagreed on rehearing (opinion summarized is the dissent).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether art. 102.011(a)(3),(b) is facially unconstitutional under Tex. Const. art. II, §1 (Separation of Powers) | Allen: fee is effectively a tax because statute does not direct funds to a legitimate criminal-justice purpose; courts become "tax gatherers" | State/majority: statute can be interpreted constitutionally; collection is a judicial function and not necessarily a tax | Dissent: would hold statute facially unconstitutional because funds flow to general revenue and statute fails to direct funds to legitimate criminal-justice purpose (appellate majority rejected this on rehearing) |
| Whether statute can be constitutionally applied in any circumstance (i.e., facial challenge standard) | Allen: no valid allocation exists under which statute would be constitutional | State: statute may have constitutional applications; court should construe statute to avoid invalidation | Dissent: applying Salinas/Peraza, statute fails because it does not direct use of funds and thus cannot be saved in any application; would invalidate facially |
| Whether collection of fees by court violates Separation of Powers when proceeds are not restricted | Allen: collecting unrestricted fees converts courts into revenue collectors and permits non-judicial spending | State: courts may collect costs when statutes allocate funds to legitimate criminal-justice purposes; collection itself is judicial | Dissent: agrees collection is judicial only when statute directs funds for legitimate criminal-justice purpose; here it does not, so unconstitutional |
| As-applied challenge: confrontation/compulsory-process rights | Allen: fee practice burdens right to compulsory process/confrontation of witnesses for indigent defendants | State: appellate precedent rejected these as-applied claims in related cases | Dissent: would find as-applied violation of confrontation/compulsory process rights but notes the panel has rejected these arguments in prior opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinas v. State, 523 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (statute allocating court-cost proceeds to accounts that end up in general revenue violates Separation of Powers; fees must be directed to legitimate criminal-justice purposes)
- Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (court costs constitutional only if statute or interconnected statute allocates proceeds for legitimate criminal-justice purposes)
- Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard: constitutionality of criminal statutes reviewed de novo)
- Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (Separation of Powers clause preserves distinct departmental powers)
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (only statutorily authorized court costs may be assessed against a criminal defendant)
- Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (remedy for erroneously assessed court costs is to modify judgment to delete the amounts)