Floyd Richard Albrecht v. State

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-16-00316-CR
FLOYD RICHARD ALBRECHT APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1233441
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
A jury convicted Appellant Floyd Richard Albrecht of driving while
intoxicated, and the trial court sentenced him to serve thirty days in jail, probated
for twelve months, and to pay a fine of $500. In one point, Appellant complains
that “Article 102.0185(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure by which the
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
‘Emergency Medical Services’[2] fee was assessed as [a] court cost is facially
unconstitutional.” As the State candidly concedes, this court has recently held
the challenged section of Article 102.0185 facially unconstitutional. See Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.0185(a); Casas, 524 S.W.3d at 925–27 (relying
on Salinas v. State, 523 S.W.3d 103, 107–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (declaring
section 133.102 of the local government code facially unconstitutional to the
extent that it allocated funds from the consolidated fee to the comprehensive
rehabilitation account and the abused children’s counseling account and
invalidating corresponding subsections 133.102(e)(1) and (6) because they do
not serve a “legitimate, criminal-justice purpose”)). Following Casas, we sustain
Appellant’s sole point.
As the State also concedes, the proper disposition in this case is to
subtract the $100 fee from the total costs assessed in the judgment and affirm
the judgment as modified. See Casas, 524 S.W.3d at 927–28. Accordingly, we
modify the trial court’s judgment to show that the total assessed court costs are
$390.10, not the $490.10 assessed in the original judgment, and we affirm the
trial court’s judgment as modified.
2
As Appellant points out in his brief, the bill of cost in the clerk’s record
does not include an “emergency medical services” fee but does include an
“emergency management services” fee. We agree with Appellant that both terms
refer to the same $100 fee. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.0185(a)
(West Supp. 2017); Casas v. State, 524 S.W.3d 921, 923, 925–26 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 2017, no pet.).
2
/s/ Mark T. Pittman
MARK T. PITTMAN
JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and PITTMAN, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: January 4, 2018
3