Nakeldrick Curtis Erskine v. State ( 2016 )

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 FILED IN
12th COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 12/5/2016 5:47:37 PM
12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PAM ESTES
Clerk
TYLER, TEXAS
NAKELDRICK ERSKINE,
APPELLANT
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBER 007-1422-15
FROM THE 7th 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, 4th 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, 4th Floor
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-590-1720
903-590-1719 (fax)
iii
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
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. §42A.352 (West 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. § 103.009 (a), (c).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.011(a)(6) (West 2014).. . . . . . . . . 7
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.001 (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 102.001-.142 (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 102.021 (West 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 103.006 (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §481.115 (a) and (b)(West 2015). . . 2
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §481.112(a) and (d)(West 2015).. . . 3
Tex. LOCAL GOV’T CODE § 133.103 (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §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
Will. v. State, 332 S.W.3d 698. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
RULES
TEX. R. APP. PROC. 9.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TEX. R. APP. PROC. 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
vi
NO. 12-14-00186-CR
NAKELDRICK ERSKINE § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
APPELLANT §
§
VS. § 12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
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 TEX.
R. APP. PROC. 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
1
with intent to deliver. I CR 41; see TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.
§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 612. 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.
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.
2
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 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §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.
3
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., TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§
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); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
§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. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
103.001 (West 2015). The clerk of the trial court is required to keep a fee
4
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 TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 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." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 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
5
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.
6
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; TEX. LOCAL GOV’T CODE §133.103 (West 2015). Mr. Erskine was
committed and placed in jail initially. TEX. CODE CRIM . PROC. 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
7
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
8
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
9
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 5th 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, 4th Floor
Tyler, Texas 75702
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this Brief complies with TEX. R. APP. 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
10