Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marshall Cody Gagnon pleaded nolo contendere at a single August 19, 2025 hearing to four drug offenses involving fentanyl, LSD, psilocin, and MDMA. At that hearing, he also pleaded true to violations of deferred-adjudication community supervision previously imposed in two other drug cases, and the trial court adjudicated him guilty in those matters.
The trial court assessed court costs for all six offenses. Gagnon appealed, arguing that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 102.073 permitted the court to assess each court cost only once because all six matters were resolved during a single proceeding.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals held that the trial court imposed duplicative costs for the four offenses to which Gagnon pleaded nolo contendere in the single 2025 criminal action. It retained the costs in trial court cause number 2025CR005677, deleted the costs from all three counts in trial court cause number 2025CR005689, and struck that cause’s bill of costs.
The court rejected Gagnon’s contention that the two deferred-adjudication matters became part of the 2025 criminal action merely because he was adjudicated guilty at the same hearing. For purposes of Chapter 102 and article 102.073, a defendant is “convicted” when deferred adjudication is imposed, not when guilt is later adjudicated. The court therefore treated those matters as convictions arising in 2022, retained the costs in trial court cause number 2020CR9246, and deleted $290 in costs from trial court cause number 2022CR3086W. It affirmed all four appellate judgments as modified.
Key Takeaways
- Article 102.073 permits each court cost to be assessed only once when multiple offenses or counts are resolved in a single criminal action.
- For purposes of that provision, deferred-adjudication cases are treated as convictions when deferred adjudication is imposed, rather than when the defendant is later adjudicated guilty.
- An appellate court may modify criminal judgments to delete duplicative costs and may strike an associated bill of costs.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that the date multiple sentences are imposed does not by itself determine whether the cases constitute a single criminal action for court-cost purposes. When deferred adjudication is involved, courts must look to when that disposition was originally imposed.
The opinion also illustrates the remedy for violating article 102.073: retain one permissible assessment within the applicable criminal action and delete duplicative assessments from the remaining judgments.