Francisco Martinez Sanchez, Jr. v. State

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00147-CR
FRANCISCO MARTINEZ SANCHEZ, JR.,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 272nd District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 16-01118-CRF-272
DISSENTING OPINION
The Constitution has not been changed. Sanchez briefed the issue. The State
concedes the fees are unconstitutional. In holding that the fees are unconstitutional in
Salinas v. State, 523 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017), the Court of Criminal Appeals
addressed the retroactive application of the holding. Id. at 113. The discussion about
retroactive application is dicta because it was not necessary to the disposition of the
proceeding before it. See Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (noting
that a conclusion not necessary to the holding of a case is dicta); State v. Brabson, 976
S.W.2d 182, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (referring to dicta as "unnecessary to [the Court's]
ultimate disposition of" the case). See also Ford v. State, 334 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2011) (holding “[t]he court of appeals erred to rely on dicta in …” when reversing
a Waco court opinion). Moreover, as written, it seems to have been contemplated as being
applicable to judgments that were otherwise final and whether this was the type error
that could be attacked collaterally, not to those judgments that were subject to direct
appeal.
Regardless, Sanchez is entitled to relief in this proceeding. The cost are a violation
of the separation of powers, and Sanchez has properly placed that issue before us in this
proceeding. See Salinas v. State, 523 S.W.3d 103, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
Because the Court affirms the assessment of unconstitutional court cost against
Sanchez, I respectfully dissent.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Dissenting opinion issued and filed August 28, 2019
Sanchez v. State Page 2