Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Nakeldrick Curtis Erskine v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 12-16-00186-CR
Court: Texas Supreme Court; December 4, 2016; Texas; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Nakeldrick Erskine appeals a judgment from the 7th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas, where he was indicted for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, a first-degree felony. He entered a guilty plea without a plea agreement and was sentenced to forty years of confinement. The appeal follows the timely filing of a notice of appeal on June 14, 2016. The appellant's brief, submitted by attorney James Huggler, addresses an incorrect calculation of court costs as the primary issue. The brief includes sections on the statement of the case, relevant facts, a summary of arguments, legal standards, and a request for relief. The document also lists the identities of parties and counsel, a table of contents, and cites various statutes and case law pertinent to the appeal. The judgment in the case is contested due to an incorrect calculation of court costs. The appellant, indicted for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, entered a guilty plea and received a forty-year sentence without a fine. The core issue is the erroneous assessment of court costs, which are legislatively mandated and should be imposed at sentencing. Court costs are not punitive and need not be included in the oral sentence. A written bill of costs, signed by the appropriate officer, is required before costs are payable, and until a certified bill is part of the record, the defendant has no obligation to pay these costs. The court is tasked with reviewing whether there is a basis for the assessed costs rather than evaluating the evidence supporting each cost. The legal sufficiency challenge standard requires determining if a rational fact-finder could conclude the essential elements of an offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A challenge to a withdrawal of funds notification is assessed for abuse of discretion, which occurs when a trial court acts without appropriate guiding principles. A reviewing court may modify a withdrawal order on appeal if evidence fails to support the court costs assessed. In this case, the judgment ordered Mr. Erskine to pay $393.00 in court costs, to be withdrawn from his inmate trust fund. However, certain fees, including a $40 county warrant fee and a $10 state warrant fee, lack record support. Additionally, a $34 DNA testing fee is inappropriate since Mr. Erskine was not placed on probation. The total supported costs amount to $309.00, which is $84 less than the billed costs. The unsupported fees relate to warrant arrests, as Mr. Erskine's arrest was on-site with no warrant issued. The relief requested includes modifying the judgment to reflect the correct court costs of $309.00 and correcting the order for fund withdrawal. The brief concludes with the attorney's contact information and service certifications.