Case Information

*0 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 12/5/2016 5:47:37 PM PAM ESTES Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 12-16-00186-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 12/5/2016 5:47:37 PM Pam Estes CLERK

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED NO. 12-16-00186-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 12 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

NAKELDRICK ERSKINE, APPELLANT

VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBER 007-1422-15 FROM THE 7 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS HONORABLE KERRY RUSSELL, JUDGE PRESIDING APPELLANT’S BRIEF JAMES W. HUGGLER, JR.

100 E. FERGUSON, SUITE 805

TYLER, TEXAS 75702

903-593-2400

STATE BAR NUMBER 00795437

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL APPELLANT:

Nakeldrick Erskine

APPELLANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL

John Jarvis

326 S. Fannin

Tyler, Texas 75702

J. Rex Thompson

321 W. Houston

Tyler, Texas 75702

903-523-8434

APPELLANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL

James Huggler

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805

Tyler, Texas 75702

903-593-2400

903-593-3830 (fax)

APPELLEE

The State of Texas

APPELLEE’S TRIAL COUNSEL

Morgan Biggs

Brent Ratekin

Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office 100 N. Broadway, 4 th Floor

Tyler, Texas 75702

903-590-1720

903-590-1719 (fax)

APPELLEE’S APPELLATE COUNSEL

Michael West

Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office ii

100 N. Broadway, 4 th Floor

Tyler, Texas 75702

903-590-1720

903-590-1719 (fax)

iii *4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii, iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

ISSUE PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ISSUE ONE: THE JUDGMENT CONTAINS AN INCORRECT CALCULATION OF COURT COSTS.

STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ISSUE ONE, RESTATED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. Law on Court Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. Standard of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6 C. Application to These Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8 D. Remedy and Relief Requested.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

iv *5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATUTES

T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . §42A.352 (West 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . § 103.009 (a), (c).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 102.011(a)(6) (West 2014).. . . . . . . . . 7

T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 103.001 (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 102.001-.142 (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 102.021 (West 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 103.006 (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

T EX . H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . §481.115 (a) and (b)(West 2015). . . 2

T EX . H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . §481.112(a) and (d)(West 2015).. . . 3

Tex. L OCAL G OV ’ T C ODE § 133.103 (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

T P ENAL C ODE NN §12.42(c)(1) (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

CASES

Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). . . . . . . . . 4

Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 765.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Howell v. State, 175 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).. . . . . . . . 6

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 315-16, S. Ct. 99 S. Ct. 2786-787.. . . . . . 6

Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim App. 2014.. . . . . . 5, 6

Johnson v. State, 405 S.W.3d 355.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). . . . . . . . . 6

Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). . . . 6

Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 548 (Tex. App. – Amarillo

2011, no pet). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 547.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). . . . . . . . . . 4

v

Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694, 699 (Tex. App. – Amarillo

2011, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 698. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

RULES

T EX . R. A PP . P ROC . 9.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

T R. PP P ROC . 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

vi *7 NO. 12-14-00186-CR NAKELDRICK ERSKINE § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

APPELLANT §

§ § 12 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

VS.

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, §

APPELLEE § TYLER, TEXAS

APPELLANT’S BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE JUSTICES

THEREOF:

Comes now Nakeldrick Erskine, (“Appellant”), by and through his attorney of record, James Huggler, and pursuant to the provisions of T .

R. PP P ROC . 38, et seq., respectfully submits this brief on appeal.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant was indicted in Cause Number 007-1422-15 and charged with the first degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance

with intent to deliver. I CR 4 ^[1] ; see T H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE NN .

§481.112(a) and (b) (West 2015). Mr. Erskine entered a plea of guilty

without an agreement as to punishment and received forty years

confinement. I CR 60, 63-64; III RR 17, IV RR 61 ^[2] . Notice of appeal was

timely filed in on June 14, 2016. I CR 62. This Brief is timely filed on or

before December 5, 2016 following proper extension granted by this Court.

ISSUE PRESENTED ISSUE ONE: THE JUDGMENT CONTAINS AN INCORRECT

CALCULATION OF COURT COSTS.

*9 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Appellant was indicted in Cause Number 007-1422-15 and charged with the first degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance

with intent to deliver, specifically on September 3, 2015 he possessed four

grams or more of cocaine but less then 200 grams wit the intent to deliver.

I CR 4; see T H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE NN §481.112(a) and (d) (West

2015). The first degree punishment range was enhanced with the

inclusion of a previous felony conviction. I CR 4; Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§12.42(c)(1) (West 2015). Mr. Erskine entered a plea of guilty without an

agreement as to punishment. I CR 50; III RR 4, 17.

Following evidence and argument of counsel, the court imposed a forty year sentence, no fine and court costs. IV RR 60-61. Further

discussion of relevant facts is included below.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The error for this Court to consider involves the improper assessment of court costs.

ARGUMENT

ISSUE ONE, RESTATED: THE JUDGMENT CONTAINS AN

INCORRECT CALCULATION OF COURT COSTS.

A. Law on Court Costs Court costs are pre-determined, legislatively-mandated obligations resulting from a conviction. See, e.g. , T EX . G OV ' T C ODE A NN . §§

102.001-.142 (West 2015) (setting forth various court costs that a

convicted person "shall" pay). A sentencing court shall impose the

statutory court costs at the time a defendant is sentenced. Armstrong v.

State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN .

§102.021 (West 2015). Court costs are not punitive in nature and do not

have to be included in an oral pronouncement of a sentence. Weir v.

State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

A cost is not payable by the person charged with the cost until a written bill is produced or is ready to be produced, containing the items

of cost, signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is

entitled to receive payment of the cost. T C ODE C RIM P ROC . NN . art.

103.001 (West 2015). The clerk of the trial court is required to keep a fee

record, and a statement of an item therein is prima facie evidence of the

correctness of the statement. Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 548 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.) (citing T EX .C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art.

103.009(a), (c)). Until a certified bill of costs has been made part of the

record, a defendant has no obligation to pay court costs. Owen, 352

S.W.3d at 547 ( citing Armstrong, 340 S.W.3d at 765; Williams v. State,

332 S.W.3d 694, 699 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 2011, pet. denied).

If a criminal action is appealed, "an officer of the court shall certify and sign a bill of costs stating the costs that have accrued and send the

bill of costs to the court to which the action or proceeding is transferred or

appealed." T C ODE C RIM P ROC . NN . art. 103.006 (West 2015).

B. Standard of Review The imposition of court costs upon a criminal defendant is a “nonpunitive recoupment of the costs of judicial resources expended in

connection with the trial of the case.” Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385,

390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). When the imposition of court costs is

challenged on appeal, the court reviews the assessment of costs to

determine if there is a basis for the cost, not to determine if there is

sufficient evidence offered at trial to prove each cost. Johnson, 423 S.W.3d

at 390.

The standard for reviewing a legal sufficiency challenge is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. at

315-16, 99 S. Ct. at 2786-787; see also Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552,

557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)(sufficiency review of evidence to support order

of repayment of attorney fees as costs).

A challenge to a withdrawal of funds notification is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Williams, 332 S.W.3d at 698. A trial court abuses

its discretion when it acts “without reference to any guiding rules and

principles. Howell v. State, 175 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005);

Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The

reviewing court may modify a withdrawal order on direct appeal if the

evidence is insufficient to support the assessment of court costs. Johnson

v. State, 405 S.W.3d at 355.

*13 C. Application to These Facts The judgment ordered payment of $393.00 in court costs. I CR 63.

The court costs were ordered to be withdrawn from Mr. Erskine’s inmate

trust fund account at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. I CR 65.

The bill of costs prepared by the District Clerk totaled $393.00 in costs,

with an amount owed of $393.00. I CR 78.

However, the $40 county warrant fee and $10 State Warrant Fee assessed are not supported by the record. Similarly, Mr. Erskine was not

placed on probation so the $34.00 fee for DNA testing is not appropriate

ly assessed. That fee is imposed is a court grants community supervision.

Tex Code Crim. Proc Ann. art. 42A.352 (West 2016).

Each of the costs always assessed in felony cases are found in the bill of costs. A time payment fee was properly assessed. I CR 78; OCA Chart

line 29; T EX . L OCAL G OV ’ T C ODE §133.103 (West 2015). Mr. Erskine was

committed and placed in jail initially. T C ODE C RIM P ROC . art.

102.011(a)(6) (West 2015).

The mandatory and discretionary fees supported by the record total $309.00. This is exactly $84 less than the bill of costs prepared. The only

items on the bill of costs not supported by the record is the warrant fees

totaling $50.00 and the DNA fee for probationers. I CR 78. According to

Smith County records, when Mr. Erskine was arrested on September 3,

2015, this was an on-sight arrest, and there is nothing on the record to

contradict this fact. II CR PSI pages 2 and 19. An on-sight arrest

indicates no warrant was issued by a magistrate invoking the two warrant

fees. Mr. Erskine was never placed on probation for this charge.

D. Remedy and Relief Requested The fees charging a warrant arrest was improperly assessed by the court. The original judgment should be modified to reflect the true

amount of court costs as assessed in the bill of costs without that fee and

the judgment and order withdrawing funds should be corrected to reflect

an amount of $309.00.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , Counsel respectfully prays that this Court modify the judgment of the trial court and order

withdrawing funds.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ James Huggler James W. Huggler, Jr.

State Bar Number 00795437 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805 Tyler, Texas 75702 903-593-2400 903-593-3830 fax ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT *16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of the Appellant has been

forwarded to counsel for the State by electronic filing on this the 5 th day

of December, 2015.

/s/ James Huggler

James W. Huggler, Jr.

Attorney for the State:

Mr. Michael West

Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office

100 N. Broadway, 4 th Floor

Tyler, Texas 75702

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this Brief complies with T R. PP P. 9.4, specifically

using 14 point Century font and contains 1,974 words as counted by

Corel WordPerfect version x5.

/s/ James Huggler

James Huggler

[1] References to the Clerk’s Record are designated “CR” with a roman numeral preceding “CR” indicating the correct volume and an arabic numeral following “CR” specifying the correct page in the record.

[2] References to the Reporter’s Record are designated “RR” with a roman numeral preceding “RR” indicating the correct volume, and an arabic numeral following “RR” specifying the correct page.