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).