What criminal court costs and fees can Texas courts charge on appeal, multiple counts, or multiple warrants?

Plain-English summary

David Slayton, the Administrative Director of the Office of Court Administration, put ten questions to the Attorney General about how criminal court costs and fees are assessed and where the money goes. The AG started with a caution: the Legislature has scattered court-cost and fee statutes across many codes, each worded differently, so it is often impossible to make a single blanket statement. Several of the questions asked about "court costs" and "fees" in the abstract without naming a statute, and for those the AG could only give general guidance.

The first cluster of questions involved appeals from a municipal court of record to a county-level court that affirms the conviction. The AG explained that a county court affirming such a conviction is not itself "convicting" the defendant; it is reviewing the municipal court's judgment. So a defendant in that posture does not owe fees that apply only to someone convicted in a county court, like the $40 county clerk fee under article 102.005. The next cluster asked about appeals from a municipal court that is not a court of record, where the case is retried from scratch (a trial de novo). There, the defendant can actually be convicted at the county level, so county court costs (for example, the county technology fee) can attach on top of any municipal fee already imposed. On the related distribution questions, who collects a cost and who remits the state's share to the Comptroller, the AG said the answer turns on the specific statute imposing each cost and declined to generalize.

The remaining questions drew more concrete answers. On multiple counts in one criminal action, some costs are charged once per case and others per offense, depending on the statute. On jail-time credit, articles 42.03 and 45.041 let a court credit only time served from arrest until sentencing, not time served afterward, though other statutes let certain courts apply jail time to satisfy fines and costs in specific situations. On the $50 peace-officer fee under article 102.011(a)(2), the AG read the statute to allow a separate fee for each arrest warrant issued, even when several warrants produce a single arrest, and even when a warrant is never executed. On the $5 commitment-or-release fee under article 102.011(a)(6), the AG noted the statute covers services "performed in the case," so a court could conclude that jailing or releasing a person after the case has ended is not covered.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

The Office of Court Administration and trial courts (as the opinion described it): The opinion gave guidance rather than across-the-board rules, explaining that each court cost or fee must be read against its own statute. It described a county-level court that affirms a municipal-court-of-record conviction as not "convicting" the defendant, so county-conviction fees like the article 102.005 clerk fee do not attach, while a trial de novo from a non-record municipal court can produce a county-level conviction that does carry county costs.

Court clerks and collections staff (as the opinion described it): The opinion described which entity collects a cost and which remits the State's share to the Comptroller as questions answerable only by reading the specific statute imposing the cost. On warrants, it described article 102.011(a)(2) as authorizing a separate $50 fee for each arrest warrant issued, including a warrant that is not executed, even when multiple warrants result in one arrest.

Criminal defendants and their counsel (as the opinion described it): The opinion described a defendant whose municipal-court-of-record conviction is merely affirmed as not owing county-conviction fees, but a defendant convicted after a trial de novo as subject to county court costs. On jail-time credit, it described articles 42.03 and 45.041 as authorizing credit only for time from arrest until sentencing, leaving post-sentence credit to other statutes in specific instances.

Cities and counties (as the opinion described it): The opinion described the distribution of each cost between city, county, and State as governed by the particular statute imposing it, citing examples that remit most of a cost to the Comptroller or let the collecting government retain a percentage for collection services.

Common questions

If a county court affirms my municipal-court conviction, do I owe extra county court costs?
No, under this opinion, for a municipal court of record. The AG explained that the county court affirming the conviction is not "convicting" you, so fees that apply only to a county-court conviction (like the $40 clerk fee under article 102.005) do not attach.

What if my municipal court is not a court of record?
Then your appeal is a trial de novo, a fresh trial in the county court. The AG explained that you can be convicted at the county level there, so county court costs can apply in addition to any municipal fee already imposed.

Can a court charge a separate $50 fee for each arrest warrant if they all led to one arrest?
Yes. The AG read article 102.011(a)(2) to apply to each issued warrant, and noted the fee applies even when a warrant is not executed, so multiple warrants can mean multiple fees.

Can jail time after my sentence be credited against my fines and court costs?
Articles 42.03 and 45.041 do not authorize that; the AG explained they credit only time from arrest until sentencing. Other statutes let certain courts apply time served to fines and costs in specific situations, and that depends on the facts and the governing statute.

Are court costs charged per count or per case when there are multiple counts?
It depends. The AG explained that some costs are assessed once per case and others for each convicted offense, and you have to read the statute or rule that imposes the particular cost.

Background and statutory framework

The AG noted that court-cost and fee statutes appear throughout the codes with unique wording, making blanket answers impossible (Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 542.403(a) (West 2011); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.014(c) (West Supp. 2011)). County-level courts hear appeals from municipal courts of record (Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 30.00014(a) (West Supp. 2013); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 45.042(a) (West 2006)), and the article 102.005 clerk fee applies to a "defendant convicted of an offense in a county court," which an affirming county court does not do (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.005(a) (West 2006); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 30.00014(b) (West Supp. 2013)). Distribution turns on the imposing statute (Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 133.107 (West Supp. 2013); id. § 133.058(a)).

Appeals from a municipal court that is not a court of record are tried de novo (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.17 (West 2006); Schinzing v. State, 234 S.W.3d 208, 209 (Tex. App.-Waco 2007, no pet.); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.281 (West 2006)), allowing a county-level conviction and county costs such as the technology fee (id. art. 102.0169(a) (West Supp. 2013)) on top of any municipal technology fee (id. art. 102.0172(a) (West 2006)). Whether a cost is charged per case or per offense depends on the statute (Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 133.105(a) (West 2008); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.004(a) (West 2006)). Jail-time credit under articles 45.041 and 42.03 runs only from arrest until sentencing (id. art. 45.041 (West Supp. 2013); id. art. 42.03, § 2(a)(1)), while other provisions allow time served to satisfy fines and costs in specific instances (id. arts. 45.048(a)(2) (West 2006), 43.09(a) (West Supp. 2013)). The peace-officer fee statute authorizes a $50 fee for each issued arrest warrant, including unexecuted warrants (id. art. 102.011 (West Supp. 2013); id. art. 102.011(a)(2); id. art. 102.011(a)(2)(B)(i)), and a $5 commitment-or-release fee for services "performed in the case" (id. art. 102.011(a)(6)).

Citations

Statutory provisions:

• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 542.403(a) (West 2011) ($3 court cost on certain misdemeanors)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.014(c) (West Supp. 2011) ($25 school-crossing-zone court cost)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 30.00014(a) (West Supp. 2013) (county-court jurisdiction over municipal-court-of-record appeals)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 30.00014(b) (West Supp. 2013) (appeal decided on the record, not by trial de novo)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 45.042(a) (West 2006) (appeals heard by the county court)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.005(a) (West 2006) ($40 county clerk fee on county-court conviction)
• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 133.107 (West Supp. 2013) ($2 indigent-defense court cost)
• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 133.058(a) (retention of a percentage for collection services)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.17 (West 2006) (trial de novo on appeal from non-record municipal court)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.281 (West 2006) (costs on appeal from a municipal court)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.0169(a) (West Supp. 2013) (county court technology fee)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.0172(a) (West 2006) (municipal court technology fee)
• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 133.105(a) (West 2008) (fee for conviction of any offense)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.004(a) (West 2006) (jury fee on a defendant convicted by a jury)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 45.041 (West Supp. 2013) (judgment and sentence; jail-time credit)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03, § 2(a)(1) (credit for time from arrest until sentencing)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 45.048(a)(2) (West 2006) (discharging fines/costs by jail time)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 43.09(a) (West Supp. 2013) (discharging fines/costs by jail time)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.011 (West Supp. 2013) (peace-officer fees)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.011(a)(2) (West Supp. 2013) ($50 fee per arrest warrant)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.011(a)(2)(B)(i) (West Supp. 2013) (fee where warrant not executed)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.011(a)(6) (West Supp. 2013) ($5 commitment-or-release fee)

Cases:

• Schinzing v. State, 234 S.W.3d 208, 209 (Tex. App.-Waco 2007, no pet.)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-1063
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2014/ga1063.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT

June 3, 2014

Mr. David Slayton Opinion No. GA-1063
Administrative Director
Office of Court Administration Re: Assessment and distribution of criminal
205 West 14th Street, Suite 600 court costs (RQ-1171-GA)
Austin, Texas 78711-2066

Dear Mr. Slayton:

You ask ten questions concerning the assessment and distribution of criminal court costs in various circumstances.[1] Some of your questions are general in nature, asking about the imposition of "court costs" and "fees" without reference to any specific statute. At the outset, we note that the Legislature has enacted statutes imposing court costs and fees throughout various codes, and the language in each statute is unique, making it impossible in many instances to make blanket statements about the assessment and distribution of court costs and fees. See, e.g., TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 542.403(a) (West 2011) (imposing a $3 court cost on any person convicted of certain misdemeanors, regardless of the court of conviction); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.014(c) (West Supp. 2011) (imposing a $25 court cost on a person convicted of specific offenses if the offenses occur in a school crossing zone, but authorizing assessment of the cost "only in a municipality"). Thus, we cannot provide definitive answers to all of your questions asked but will provide guidance to the extent possible.

Your first three questions address instances when a defendant is convicted in a municipal court of record and appeals to a county-level court, which affirms the judgment of the municipal court of record. Request Letter at 2-3; see also TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 30.00014(a) (West Supp. 2013) (granting county courts "jurisdiction of appeals from a municipal court of record"); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 45.042(a) (West 2006) ("Appeals from a ... municipal court ... shall be heard by the county court[.]"). You first ask whether the defendant will owe only the court costs assessed at the municipal court level, or whether the defendant will also incur "additional costs that are assessed for convictions in county-level courts such as the $40 court cost assessed for the services of the county clerk under article 102.005 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." Request Letter at 2. The fees imposed under article 102.005 apply to a "defendant convicted of an offense in a county court." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.005(a) (West 2006) (emphasis added). A county-level court that affirms the judgment of a municipal court of record is not itself "convicting" a defendant but is instead affirming the conviction adjudged by the municipal court of record.[2] Thus, a defendant seeking appellate review at the county-court level of a conviction from a municipal court of record would not be subject to the fees imposed under article 102.005 or any other court costs or fees that are imposed only against a defendant convicted in a county court.[3]

With regard to this same scenario, you also ask whether "any part of the court costs collected from the defendant [is] directed to the county," and which entity, the city or county, would be responsible "for collecting the court costs and directing the court costs intended for the State to the Comptroller." Request Letter at 3. Your questions do not reference any specific court cost. Determining to which entity each court cost or fee shall be directed, and which entity is responsible for collecting those costs intended for the Comptroller, will require analyzing the specific language of the statute imposing the particular cost or fee. See, e.g., TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 133.107 (West Supp. 2013) (imposing on most convicted defendants a $2 court cost, most of which is remitted to the Comptroller, to fund indigent defense representation); .058(a) (allowing the municipality or county collecting certain fees to retain up to ten percent for collection services). We cannot provide broad answers that will apply in all circumstances.

Your next three questions are similar to the first three but involve a municipal court that is not a court of record. See Request Letter at 3-4. "In all appeals to a county court from ... municipal courts other than municipal courts of record, the trial shall be de novo in the trial in the county court, the same as if the prosecution had been originally commenced in that court." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.17 (West 2006). Thus, unlike an appeal from a municipal court of record, a defendant appealing a conviction from a municipal court that is not a court of record may be convicted at the county court level following a trial de novo. See Schinzing v. State, 234 S.W.3d 208, 209 (Tex. App.-Waco 2007, no pet.) (explaining that a defendant convicted in a municipal court who appealed to a statutory county court "was again convicted following a trial de novo"). With regard to this scenario, you ask whether a defendant convicted in a trial de novo at the county court level would be subject to the county court costs. Request Letter at 3. As an example, you note that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a defendant convicted in a county court shall pay a county court technology fee under article 102.0169. Id.; see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0169(a) (West Supp. 2013). Similarly, if the governing body of a municipality decides to do so, it may require a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor offense in a municipal court to pay a technology fee under article 102.0172. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0172(a) (West 2006). In the scenario you describe, the defendant will initially be convicted in a municipal court and will be subject to the municipal technology fee if the municipality imposes one. Request Letter at 3. Upon review in a trial de novo at the county-level, the defendant will be convicted and will then be subject to the county technology fee. Id.

Continuing with this same scenario, you also ask whether any part of the court costs collected at the county level are directed to the city, and which entity, the city or county, is responsible for collecting the court costs intended for the State. Id. at 3-4. As discussed above, determining to whom each court cost or fee shall be directed and which entity is responsible for collecting the court costs intended for the State will require analyzing the specific language of the statute imposing the particular cost or fee. You do not ask about any specific statutes or court costs with regard to these questions, and we cannot provide an answer that will be applicable in all circumstances.

Your seventh question asks whether a defendant who is "convicted of multiple counts of an offense in a single criminal action" should be assessed court costs on each count or only once per case. Id. at 5. You do not ask about any specific court costs or fees but instead phrase your question in general terms. As you note, some court costs or fees are assessed upon conviction of a single offense, while others are assessed against a defendant or for services in a particular case. Id.; see also TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 133.105(a) (West 2008) (imposing a particular fee for conviction of "any offense"); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.004(a) (West 2006) (imposing a jury fee on a "defendant convicted by a jury"). In answer to your question, certain court costs and fees may be assessed only once per case, while others may be assessed for each convicted offense within a case, and a determination about a specific cost or fee will require a review of the statute or rule imposing that cost.

Your eighth question concerns whether a convicted defendant may be given credit toward outstanding fines and court costs for time spent in jail after the sentence has been imposed. Request Letter at 6. You explain that if a convicted defendant fails to pay an imposed fine and court costs, the convicting court may order that the defendant be arrested on a capias pro fine and be brought before the court, at which time the judge holds a hearing to address the defendant's nonpayment. Id. at 5-6. If the defendant is not taken immediately before the court, the defendant will be placed in jail, and you question whether time spent in jail can be credited against the court costs due. Id. You specifically ask about article 45.041 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states in relevant part:

(a) The judgment and sentence, in case of conviction in a criminal action before a justice of the peace or municipal court judge, shall be that the defendant pay the amount of the fine and costs to the state.

(c) The justice or judge shall credit the defendant for time served in jail as provided by Article 42.03.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 45.041 (West Supp. 2013). Article 42.03 states:

In all criminal cases the judge of the court in which the defendant is convicted shall give the defendant credit on the defendant's sentence for the time that the defendant has spent:

(1) in jail for the case ... from the time of his arrest and confinement until his sentence by the trial court.

Id. art. 42.03, § 2(a)(1) (emphasis added). You suggest that because these statutes only address credits for time served from the time of arrest until sentencing, they would not apply to the situation about which you ask, and we agree. Request Letter at 6. The plain language of articles 45.041 and 42.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorize a court to give a defendant credit for time served after the sentence has been imposed. However, other provisions within the Code of Criminal Procedure authorize certain courts to use a defendant's time served to satisfy court fines and costs in specific instances. See, e.g., TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 45.048(a)(2) (West 2006), 43.09(a) (West Supp. 2013). Whether a convicted defendant may be given credit toward outstanding court costs will require analyzing specific facts against the relevant statute authorizing the credit.

Your ninth question concerns the imposition of certain costs when multiple warrants result in a single arrest. Request Letter at 6-7. Article 102.011 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states in relevant part:

(a) A defendant convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor shall pay the following fees for services performed in the case by a peace officer:

(2) $50 for executing or processing an issued arrest warrant, capias, or capias pro fine, with the fee imposed for the services of:

(A) the law enforcement agency that executed the arrest warrant or capias, if the agency requests of the court, not later than the 15th day after the date of the execution of the arrest warrant or capias, the imposition of the fee on conviction; or

(B) the law enforcement agency that processed the arrest warrant or capias, if:

(i) the arrest warrant or capias was not executed; or

(ii) the executing law enforcement agency failed to request the fee within the period by Paragraph (A) of this subdivision; . . . .

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.011 (West Supp. 2013). With regard to this provision, you ask "whether separate $50 fees should be assessed when multiple warrants have been processed that result in one arrest." Request Letter at 6. The fee described in subsection (a)(2) is for "an issued arrest warrant," indicating that the fee applies to each issued warrant. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.011(a)(2) (West Supp. 2013) (emphasis added). Furthermore, although you raise the concern "that charging two arrest fees when only one arrest was made [may be] inappropriate," the fee expressly applies even when a warrant is not executed. Request Letter at 7; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.011(a)(2)(B)(i) (West Supp. 2013). Thus, if multiple warrants have been issued, the language of article 102.011 authorizes a court to assess corresponding fees for each warrant issued.

Your final question asks about a separate fee imposed under article 102.011(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure "for services performed in the case by a peace officer," specifically, "$5 for commitment or release." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.011(a)(6) (West Supp. 2013); Request Letter at 7. You explain that your office understands this language to mean that the fee should be assessed for placing a defendant in jail or releasing a defendant from jail prior to trial. Request Letter at 7. Furthermore, your office does not construe the statute to authorize a fee for release if the defendant is not released from jail prior to trial, nor does your office believe that a fee should be assessed for committing the defendant to jail after the conclusion of the case. Id. The express language of article 102.011(a) authorizes fees for services "performed in the case." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.011(a) (West Supp. 2013) (emphasis added). A court could therefore conclude that any commitment or release from jail after the conclusion of the case will not be a service performed "in" the case and that article 102.011(a)(6) does not authorize fees for those services.

SUMMARY

The fee imposed under article 102.005 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to a defendant convicted of an offense in a county-level court. A defendant whose conviction from a municipal court of record was affirmed at the county-court level would not be subject to the fees imposed under article 102.005 because the conviction occurred at the municipal level. Unlike an appeal from a municipal court of record, however, a defendant appealing a conviction from a municipal court that is not a court of record may be convicted at the county court level following a trial de novo.

Certain court costs and fees will be assessed for each convicted offense of a defendant, while others will be assessed once per case, and a determination about a specific cost or fee will require a review of the statute or rule imposing that cost.

While articles 42.03 and 45.041 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorize a court to give a defendant credit only for time served from the time of arrest and confinement until sentencing by the trial court, other provisions authorize certain courts to use a defendant's time served to satisfy court fines and costs in specific instances. Whether a convicted defendant may be given credit toward outstanding court costs will require analyzing specific facts against the relevant statute authorizing the credit.

Article 102.011(a)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes a court to assess a separate fee for each arrest warrant issued even when multiple warrants result in only one arrest.

Article 102.011(a)(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes a $5 fee for commitment or release services performed in the case by a peace officer. A court could conclude that any commitment or release from jail after the conclusion of the case will not be a service performed in the case and that article 102.011(a)(6) does not authorize fees for those services.

Very truly yours,

GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

JAMES D. BLACKLOCK
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

Virginia K. Hoelscher
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] See Letter from David Slayton, Admin. Dir., Office of Court Admin., to Honorable Greg Abbott, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1-7 (Dec. 5, 2013), http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opin ("Request Letter").

[2] Subsection 30.00014(b) of the Government Code provides that a county court "shall determine each appeal from a municipal court of record conviction ... on the basis of the errors that are set forth in the appellant's motion for new trial and that are presented in the clerk's record and the reporter's record prepared from the proceedings leading to the conviction or appeal." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 30.00014(b) (West Supp. 2013). "An appeal from the municipal court of record may not be by trial de novo." Id.

[3] You do not ask, and we do not address, whether and to what extent the defendant may incur separate appellate costs and fees when seeking review at the county-court level. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.281 (West 2006) ("In misdemeanor cases affirmed on appeal from a municipal court, ... the costs imposed on appeal shall be collected from defendant ....").