Steven A. Hayes v. the State of Texas, 02-20-00019-CV

Steven A. Hayes was convicted of aggravated sexual assault (indictment alleging offense in 2005); a 2013 Denton County bill of costs included a $250 DNA‑testing fee.
In 2018 Hayes learned that no biological evidence suitable for DNA testing had been collected in the investigation.
Hayes moved to correct the bill of costs and to recover the $250 that the State had withdrawn (or attempted to withdraw) from his inmate account.
The trial court denied Hayes’s motion, adopting the State’s proposed findings and conclusions, concluding former Art. 102.020 required assessment of the $250 on conviction.
On appeal the court reviewed the statute’s plain language and legislative purpose (funding criminal‑justice/DNA programs) and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, also rejecting Hayes’s related complaints about withdrawal procedure and other alleged cost items.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $250 DNA‑testing fee may be assessed/withdrawn when no biological evidence was collected	Hayes: fee improper because no DNA was collected; requests correction and reimbursement	State: former Art. 102.020 required collection of $250 on conviction for listed offenses regardless of whether DNA was collected	Fee properly assessed and withdrawal authorized under the statute; affirmed
Whether inmate must be given an opportunity to complain before funds are withdrawn	Hayes: lacked opportunity to contest withdrawal	State: precedent permits post‑withdrawal challenge; no pre‑withdrawal opportunity required	No pre‑withdrawal opportunity required (Harrell). Challenge may occur after withdrawal; claim overruled
Whether other listed charges appeared in bills (attorney fees, separate $34 DNA fee, restitution‑installment fee)	Hayes: bill included additional improper charges	State: those items were not included in the 2013 or amended 2020 bills	Court: those alleged items were not included; complaint overruled

Stahmann v. State, 602 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (apply statute’s plain language unless it yields absurd result)
Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (statute’s purpose includes funding DNA collection/database and criminal‑justice planning)
Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (inmate need not be given pre‑withdrawal opportunity to contest a withdrawal order)
Grimes v. State, 807 S.W.2d 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (ex‑post‑facto analysis framework)
Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981) (ex‑post‑facto principles cited for comparative framework)