William Johnson v. State, 475 S.W.3d 430

Background

William Johnson pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon (no plea agreement) after the court conducted competency and admonishment inquiries and confirmed he had rejected a prior plea offer.
At the plea hearing the court asked specific questions to confirm the State had offered a two-year deal on a reduced robbery charge and that Johnson had turned it down.
The court accepted Johnson’s guilty plea and later sentenced him to eight years’ confinement and assessed court costs under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 133.102.
On appeal Johnson argued (1) the trial judge interfered in plea negotiations, compromising judicial neutrality, (2) § 133.102’s court-costs scheme is unconstitutional, and (3) the written judgment contained errors (wrong offense level and a statement that he had no right to appeal).
The State conceded the written-judgment errors; the appellate court modified the judgment to correct the offense level and to reflect Johnson’s right to appeal, and otherwise affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial-court interference in plea negotiations	Court’s questions about the State’s offer and its length made the judge an advocate and biased on punishment	Court’s inquiries occurred after negotiations ended and merely ensured the record showed Johnson knowingly rejected the offer	Overruled — no interference; questions were to create a proper record and did not show trial-court involvement in bargaining
Constitutionality of § 133.102 court-costs assessment	§ 133.102 improperly requires courts to collect funds used for rehabilitation, violating separation of powers under the Texas Constitution	Appellant forfeited the constitutional challenge by not raising it in the trial court; prior cases allowing after‑the‑fact cost challenges do not excuse preservation here	Overruled for lack of preservation — appellant failed to raise the constitutional challenge at trial
Incorrect offense level in written judgment	Judgment lists offense as state-jail felony though plea/admonitions and statute show first-degree felony	State concedes error	Granted — judgment reformed to reflect conviction as a first-degree felony
Written statement that appellant has no right to appeal	Written judgment says no right to appeal despite oral pronouncement that there was no plea bargain and appellant retained appellate rights	State concedes error; oral pronouncement controls over inconsistent written judgment	Granted — judgment reformed to reflect appellant’s right to appeal

Key Cases Cited

Moore v. State, 295 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (trial judge must not participate in plea-bargaining process)
Ex parte Shuflin, 528 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (judge’s improper involvement in plea negotiations is forbidden)
Perkins v. Court of Appeals for Third Supreme Judicial Dist. of Tex., 738 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (definition and limits of plea bargaining subject to judicial approval)
Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (addressing appellate review of assessed court costs when record lacks basis)
Cardenas v. State, 423 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (defendant may challenge assessed costs on appeal where record permits)
Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation required for facial constitutional challenges)
Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)
Grice v. State, 162 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (oral statements about appeal rights control over inconsistent written judgment)
French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (appellate courts may reform judgments to correct clerical errors in offense classification)