Willie Lee Amie, Jr. v. State, 02-15-00386-CR

Appellant Willie Lee Amie, Jr. pleaded guilty to two separate second‑degree robbery indictments and received concurrent 15‑year sentences after a jury punishment hearing.
Each judgment assessed a $133 “Consolidated Court Cost” pursuant to Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 133.102(a)(1).
The judgments also included an order to withdraw funds from Appellant’s inmate trust under Tex. Gov’t Code § 501.014.
Appellant challenges the $133 consolidated court cost as an unconstitutional tax that violates the Texas Constitution’s separation of powers clause.
Appellant asks the court of appeals to delete the $133 charge from the judgments; the brief acknowledges existing contrary controlling authority (e.g., Peraza).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 133.102(a)(1) (the $133 consolidated court cost) is constitutional	Amie: The $133 is an unconstitutional tax because proceeds fund programs unrelated to the prosecution or trial and thus is neither necessary nor incidental to the trial (violates separation of powers).	State: (implicitly) statute is valid and collectible; existing CCA precedent supports upholding such statutory costs (brief acknowledges binding contrary authority).	Appellant requests deletion of the $133; brief preserves error for appeal but notes controlling precedent exists against the argument (no appellate holding contained in the brief).

Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (court costs described as nonpunitive recoupment of judicial resource expenses)
Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (challenge to post‑judgment assessed costs may be raised on appeal because itemization often appears only in the written judgment)
Ex Parte Carson, 159 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942) (holding a court fee used to fund a county law library was an unconstitutional tax not necessary or incidental to trial)
Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (controlling authority noted by appellant adverse to his constitutional challenge)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (insufficient‑evidence claims about ability to pay may be raised for first time on appeal)
Ex Parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard: facial challenges to statutes are reviewed de novo)
State v. Rosseau, 396 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (statutory validity presumed; challenger bears burden)
Lopez v. State, 253 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (preservation requirements for appellate complaints)