the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No.
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill
issue, Appellant Francisco Martinez Sanchez, Jr. challenges
the punishment assessed in connection with his conviction for
three separate felony offenses: (1) burglary of a vehicle;
and (2) two counts of theft of less than $2, 500. Sanchez
additionally entered pleas of "true" to two
enhancements. The trial court imposed a sentence of six years
on each count, to be served concurrently.
argues that $133.00 of the costs assessed against him should
be vacated because the statute under which they were imposed
has been held unconstitutional by the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Salinas v. State, 523 S.W.3d 103 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2017). Specifically, Sanchez challenges those
portions of the costs that were assessed under §§
133.102(e)(1) and (e)(6) of the Local Government Code that
relate to "abused children's counseling" and
"comprehensive rehabilitation." Tex. Loc. Gov. Code
Ann. §§ 133.102(e)(1) and (e)(6). The State
concedes error, noting that these sections have been declared
unconstitutional by Salinas. The State argues,
however, that Salinas does not apply to Sanchez
because the Court of Criminal Appeals directed that it have
only limited retroactive effect.
Court of Criminal Appeals held in Salinas:
[W]e will also apply our constitutional holding in this case
to any defendant who has raised the appropriate claim in a
petition for discretionary review before the date of this
opinion, if that petition is still pending on the date of
this opinion and if the claim would otherwise be properly
before us on discretionary review. Otherwise, our holding
will apply prospectively to trials that end after the date
the mandate in the present case issues.
Salinas, 523 S.W.3d at 113. Mandate issued in
Salinas on June 30, 2017. See Salinas v.
State, No. PD-0170-16 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2017)
sentences were imposed on April 13, 2017, and the judgments
were signed by the presiding judge on April 26, 2017. The
bill of costs that imposed the challenged $133.00 fee was
filed on April 28, 2017.
no petition for discretionary review is pending on
Sanchez's claim and the proceedings in the trial court
ended prior to issuance of the mandate in Salinas,
the court's holding in that case does not apply. See
also Hawkins v. State, 551 S.W.3d 764, 767 (Tex.
App.-Fort Worth 2017, pet. ref'd); Hernandez-Valdez
v. State, No. 12-17-00136-CR, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler
Mar. 15, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication); James v. State, No. 05-16-01313-CR,
2017 WL 4944877, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Nov. 1, 2017, no
pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Love v.
State, No. 08-17-00030-CR, 2017 WL 4675614, at *2 (Tex.
App.-El Paso Oct. 18, 2017, pet. refd) (mem. op., not
designated for publication); Garrett v. State, No.
03-17-00030-CR, 2017 WL 3897270, at *2 (Tex. App.-Austin Aug.
25, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication); Austin v. State, No. 06-16-00135-CR,
2017 WL 2265679, at *3 (Tex. App. - Texarkana May 24, 2017,
pet. refd) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
argues that we reject the holding in Salinas
regarding retroactivity. However, as an intermediate court,
we must follow the majority holding in that case.
Villarreal v. State, 504 S.W.3d 494, 509 (Tex. App.
- Corpus Christi 2016, pet. refd); see also Gonzales v.
State, 190 S.W.3d 125, 130 n.1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st
Dist.] 2005, pet. refd).
overrule Sanchez's sole issue and affirm the judgments of
the trial court.