Latora Brimzy v. the State of Texas

Reversed and Remanded and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed March
28, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00631-CR

LATORA BRIMZY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1604631

CONCURRING OPINION

I respectfully concur because I think this case is controlled by Stanfield v.
State, 718 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). In Stanfield, the Court of Criminal
Appeals ignored the plain language of the predecessor statute. Similarly, this court
is ignoring the plain language of the current statute, citing Stanfield, legislative
history, the absurdity doctrine, and Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983).
It was undisputed that appellant failed to attend an anger management course
and failed to attend therapy—two other conditions of community supervision not
implicating the payment of fees. Yet Bearden controls where payment of fees is the
only issue. “But a probationer who has made sufficient bona fide efforts to pay his
fine and restitution, and who has complied with the other conditions of probation,
has demonstrated a willingness to pay his debt to society and an ability to conform
his conduct to social norms.” 461 U.S. at 670 (emphasis added).

If nonpayment of fees is not the only issue, why then does the majority include
Bearden in its analysis? Unfortunately, the trial judge only made one finding in the
judgment. If appellant had made a constitutional objection below, it is quite probable
that the trial judge would have included the undisputed violation of the other
conditions in the judgment.

If there is no Bearden violation, then the majority—through its rewrite of the
statute—has made the statute more protective than the Constitution. That seems
contrary to the plain terms of the statute.

/s/ Tracy Christopher
Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Hassan.
Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

2