Opinion filed May 9, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-23-00020-CR

___________

EDWARD TOBY GARZA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 32nd District Court

Mitchell County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 8157

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Edward Toby Garza, entered an open plea of guilty to the firstdegree felony offense of continuous sexual abuse of a young child. See TEX. PENAL 

CODE ANN. § 21.02(b), (h) (West Supp. 2023). Appellant’s guilty plea was accepted 

by the trial court. Following a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant to punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice for a term of forty-eight years with a fine of $600. 

We modify and affirm. 
2

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to 

withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and 

conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that this 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy 

of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of 

both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his

right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief and of his right to 

file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has 

complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991). 

Appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. In his response, 

Appellant acknowledges the impact of his actions but raises no legal issues for our 

review.

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable 

grounds for appeal exist.1

 We conclude, however, that the written judgment contains 

a nonreversible error because there is a variance between the oral pronouncement of 

Appellant’s sentence and the trial court’s written judgment. In open court, the trial 

court imposed a $500 fine. Contrary to the oral pronouncement, the judgment 

reflects a $600 fine, which appears to include the $500 fine pronounced in open court 

and the $100 fine required by Article 102.0185 of the Texas Code of Criminal 

1

We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
3

Procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0185 (West Supp. 2023). In 

addition, the trial court checked the box for “Child Abuse Prevention Fine” and 

added $100 to the same line in the section of the judgment entitled, “Fines Imposed 

Include (check each fine and enter each amount as pronounced by the court).” 

When there is a variation between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the 

written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 

131, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328–29 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1998); Wiedenfeld v. State, 450 S.W.3d 905, 907 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2014, no pet.). Because the trial court actually assessed a $500 fine, rather 

than a $600 fine, when it orally pronounced Appellant’s sentence and because we 

have the necessary information for reformation, we modify the trial court’s judgment 

to show a fine of $500. See TEX.R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Wiedenfeld, 450 S.W.3d at 907–

08.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We modify the trial court’s judgment 

to reflect a fine of $500, and we delete the “X” and “$100” in the line for “Child 

Abuse Prevention Fine.” As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS

JUSTICE

May 9, 2024

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.