Devon Ray Davis v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
06-15-00032-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
7/6/2015 2:10:11 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA
FILED IN
6th COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
STATE OF TEXAS, § 7/6/2015 2:10:11 PM
APPELLEE § DEBBIE AUTREY
Clerk
§ 06-15-00032-CR
v. § No. 06-14-00032-CR
§
DEVON RAY DAVIS §
APPELLANT §
STATE'S REPLY BRIEF
FROM THE 196TH DISTRICT COURT
HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS
TRIAL CAUSE NUMBER 22,886
THE HONORABLE JOE M. LEONARD, JUDGE PRESIDING
NOBLE DAN WALKER, JR.
District Attorney
Hunt County, Texas
G. CALVIN GROGAN V
Assistant District Attorney
P. 0. Box 441
4th Floor Hunt County Courthouse
Greenville, TX 75403
(903) 408-4180
FAX (903) 408-4296
State Bar No. 24050695
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF CASE .......................................................................................... 5
ISSUES
PRESENTED ..................................................................................... 5
SUMMARY OF STATE'S ARGUMENT ............................................................... 5
APPELLANT'S WRITTEN JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REFORMED ............... 5
STANDARD OF
REVIEW ......................................................................................... 5
ATTORNEY FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO
JUDGMENT ........................................................................................................ 6
IMPOSITION OF $122 IN URINALYSIS FEES ALLOWED ......................... 7
PRAYER .................................................................................................................... 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................. 8
2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Texas Cases
Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ....................... 6
Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ..................................... 5
Ex Parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ................................. 5
McPherson v. State, No. 06-13-00081-CR *7 Fn10 (Tex. App.- Texarkana
2013) ....................................................................................................................... 7
Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2011, no pet. ........... 7
Will. v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694, 700 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2011, pet.
denied) .................................................................................................................... 7
Texas Statues
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 102.012(b)1 (Vernon 2012) .................................... 7
3
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
APPELLEE §
§
v. § No. 06-14-00032-CR
§
DEVON RAY DAVIS §
APPELLANT §
STATE'S REPLY BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
NOW COMES the State of Texas, Appellant, in this direct appeal
from Cause No. 22,886 in the 196th Judicial District Court in and for Hunt
County, Texas, Honorable Joe M. Leonard, Presiding, now before the Sixth
District Court of Appeals, and respectfully submits this its brief to the Sixth
District Court of Appeal~.
4
STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS
The State agrees with both the Appellant's Statement of Case and Statement
of Facts.
ISSUE PRESENTED
Issue 1. Should the Appellant's Written Judgment Be Reformed to
Reflect the Trial Court's Oral Pronouncement of Sentence?
S~YOFTHEARGUMENT
1. Yes and No. The Trial Court should not have imposed court-appointed
attorney fees after failing to make such an oral pronouncement during
sentencing, but imposition of Urinalysis Fees is a legislatively mandated
court cost that does not have to be included in the oral pronouncement of
sentence.
ARGUMENT
1. Appellant's Written Judgment Should Not have Included $2,337.00
in Court-Appointed Attorney Fees
5
a. Standard of Review
"A trial court's pronouncement of sentence is oral, while the
judgment, including the sentence assessed, is merely the written declaration
and embodiment of that oral pronouncement." Ex Parte Madding, 70
S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Ifthe oral pronouncement of
sentence and written judgments vary, the oral pronouncement controls.
Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
b. $2,122 Court-Appointed Attorney Fees
The State agrees with Appellant that the written judgment conflicts
with the Trial Court's oral pronouncement of sentence in regards to
imposing court-appointed attorney fees.
c. Appellant Still Owes $122.00 in Urinalysis Fees
"Because legislatively mandated fees and costs are not punitive in
nature, they need not be included in the oral pronouncement of sentence to
be validly imposed on a convicted defendant." Armstrong v. State, 340
S.W.3d 759, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). "Payment of a urinalysis fee is
not included within Chapter 12 ofthe Texas Penal Code entitled
6
Punishments and does not alter the range of punishment." McPherson v.
State, No. 06-13-00081-CR *7 Fn10 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 2013). "A
defendant's ability to pay is not relevant to legislatively mandated court
costs, and a trial court may order the defendant to pay or reimburse a
community supervision and corrections department for any other expense
that is ... .incurred as a result of the defendant's participation in the pretrial
intervention program." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 102.012(b)1) (Vernon
2012); Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2011, no
pet.); Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694, 700 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2011,
pet. denied).
Appellant should still be required to pay the $122 in Urinalysis fees.
PRAYER
The State prays that the Appellant's Judgment be reformed to delete
the imposition of court appointed attorney fees.
Respectfully submitted,
NOBLE DAN WALKER, JR.
District Attorney
Hunt County, Texas
~\4\::, _;;., lr.>'-
;/-
, :./1.:.; }""
1 _... ~ _J
~J'\
~.?"'rr''ti~ ~r,., ..
/ /
G cALVIN GROGAN V
7
Assistant District Attorney
P. 0. Box 441
4th Floor, Hunt County
Courthouse
Greenville, TX 75403
State Bar No. 24050695
(903) 408-4180
FAX (903) 408-4296
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH T.R.A.P. 9.4(i)(3)
Relying on Microsoft Word's word count feature used to create the
State's Reply Brief, I certify that the number of words contained in this brief
is 870 and the typeface used is 14Font.
I (/
G CALVIN GROGAN V
Assistant District Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true copy of the State's brief has been mailed via first-class mail to
Katherine Ferguson, Appellee's attorney of record, today, July 6, 2015,
pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
G CALVIN GROGAN V
Assistant District Attorney
8