Amista LaShae Salinas v. The State of Texas Appeal from 220th District Court of Comanche County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed May 18, 2017 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-16-00194-CR ___________ AMISTA LASHAE SALINAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 220th District Court Comanche County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR-03945 MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Appellant, Amista LaShae Salinas, of the offense of possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for sixteen months and a fine of $1,000, but it suspended the confinement portion of the sentence and placed her on community supervision for three years. The trial court also ordered, among other things, that Appellant pay court costs and “reimburse the Department of Public Safety $180 for the cost of analyzing the materials in this case.” We affirm. On appeal, Appellant presents two issues. In her first issue, she contends that there is no statutory basis to impose court costs for “emergency medical services” in the amount of $29 against Appellant, and she asks that we delete that assessment. In her second issue, Appellant asserts that the judgment erroneously reflects the DPS lab fee to be “restitution,” and she asks that we reform the judgment to reflect that Appellant owes no restitution but, instead, owes $180 as “DPS lab fees.” After Appellant’s brief was filed, the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc judgment in this case. The judgment nunc pro tunc reflects a $29 decrease in the amount of court costs—from $358 to $329. It also reflects that no restitution is due but that Appellant is to reimburse the DPS in the amount of $180. Because the matters raised in the issues on appeal have already been remedied by the trial court, we hold that Appellant’s issues are both moot. Appellant has not asked for any other relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as reflected in the nunc pro tunc judgment signed on April 3, 2017. PER CURIAM May 18, 2017 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
