Danny Aragonmarquez v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Modified and Affirmed and Opinion Filed May 31, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-00186-CR
DANNY ARAGONMARQUEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1812099-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove
Opinion by Justice Goldstein
Danny Aragonmarquez appeals his murder conviction. A jury convicted
appellant and sentenced him to thirty years’ confinement. In three issues, appellant
asserts the judgment should be modified to reflect the amount of costs authorized to
be assessed against him, reflect that appellant pled not guilty to the charged offense,
and accurately reflect the penal code section for the offense. As modified, we affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
Appellant was charged by indictment with murder pursuant to penal code
section 19.02(b). At trial in February 2020, appellant pled not guilty to the charges
alleged in the indictment. Following trial, the jury found appellant guilty of murder
“as charged in the indictment.” The bill of cost shows appellant was assessed $340
itemized as follows:
CLERK’S FEE 40.00
JURY FEE 1.00
CCDC TECHNOLOGY FUND 4.00
COURT HOUSE SEC FEE 10.00
CONS STATE FEES 185.00
COUNTY RECORDS MGT 25.00
DNA FEE 2 50.00
SPECIALTY COURT 25.00
This appeal followed.
In his first issue, appellant asks us to modify the judgment to reflect the
amount of costs authorized to be assessed against him. Specifically, appellant asks
that the $1 jury fee and $25 specialty court fee should be deleted, the amount of the
courthouse security fee should be reduced by $5, the amount of costs assessed on
conviction of a felony should be reduced by $52, resulting in a total reduction in
costs of $83.
Section 134.101 of the local government code imposes a $105 court cost on
felony convictions,1 which is allocated to six different funds and accounts: (1) the
clerk of the court account; (2) the county records management and preservation fund;
(3) the county jury fund; (4) the courthouse security fund; (5) the county and district
–2–
court technology fund; and (6) the county specialty court account. TEX. LOC. GOV’T
CODE ANN. § 134.101; Shuler v. State, 650 S.W.3d 683, 687 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2022, no pet.). The statute became effective on January 1, 2020, and applies only to
offenses committed on or after that date.1
The State agrees that the reduction in fees appellant requests should be granted
because the underlying offense occurred in 2018, and the statutes permitting the
higher fees assessed did not become effective until January 1, 2020. See, e.g.,
Krenzer v. State, No. 05-21-00444-CR, 2022 WL 17423464, at *8 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Dec. 6, 2022, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (deleting $1 jury fee
and $25 specialty court fee, reducing courthouse security fee from $10 to $5, and
reducing consolidated fee on conviction from $185 to $1332 in case where offense
occurred prior to January 1, 2020). This Court has the power to correct and reform
the judgment of the court below to make the record speak the truth when it has the
necessary data and information to do so, or make any appropriate order as the law
and the nature of the case may require. Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we sustain appellant’s first issue and
modify the judgment in this case to reduce the costs by $83 for a new total of $257
by deleting the $1 jury fee and $25 specialty court fee, reducing the courthouse
1
See Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, (S.B. 346) §§ 1.05, 5.01, 5.04, 2019 Tex. Gen.
Laws 3981, 3984–85, 4035 (codified at TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 134.101).
2
See Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, (S.B. 346) § 1.03 (current version at TEX. LOC.
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 133.102(a)(1))
–3–
security fee from $10 to $5, and reducing the consolidated fee on conviction from
$185 to $133.
In his second and third issues, appellant argues the judgment should be further
modified to reflect that he pled “not guilty” to the charged offense and that the penal
code sections for the offense for which he was convicted are sections 19.02(b)(1)
and (2). Again, the State agrees, and the record supports the correction of the
judgment to show appellant pled “not guilty” and to state the correct section of the
penal code. See id. We sustain appellant’s second and third issues and modify the
judgment to state that appellant pled “not guilty” and to correctly identify the
applicable section of the penal code as sections 19.02(b)(1) and (2).
As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Bonnie Lee Goldstein//
220186f.u05 BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
Do Not Publish JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DANNY ARAGONMARQUEZ, On Appeal from the 291st Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1812099-U.
No. 05-22-00186-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Goldstein. Justices Nowell and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:
We REMOVE the word “GUILTY” from the space beneath “Plea to
Offense” and substitute the words “NOT GUILTY”;
We REMOVE the words “19.02 (C) Penal Code” from the space
beneath “Statute for Offense” and substitute the words “19.02(b)(1) and
(2) Penal Code.”
Additionally, the trial court’s bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows:
We REMOVE the following charges: (i) JURY FEE $1.00, and (ii)
SPECIALTY COURT $25.00; and
We REMOVE the amount “$10.00” from the entry for “COURT
HOUSE SEC FEE” and INSERT “$5.00” for this entry.
We REMOVE the amount “$185.00” from the entry for “CONS
STATE FEES,” and INSERT “$133.00” for this entry.
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 31st day of May, 2023.
–5–