Summary
modifying trial court's judgment by subtracting $100 Emergency Medical Services fee from total assessed court costs
Summary of this case from Deaver v. StateOpinion
NO. 02-16-00316-CR
01-04-2018
FLOYD RICHARD ALBRECHT APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1233441 MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
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 'Emergency Medical Services' 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 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.).
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.
/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 DO NOT PUBLISH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