MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed July 28, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01333-CR

SHIRLEY ANN ALFARO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-62798-W

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers

Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

Shirley Ann Alfaro appeals from the revocation of her community supervision. In a 

single issue, appellant contends the judgment revoking community supervision should be 

modified to delete the fine. We modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified.

Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to intoxication assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE 

ANN. § 49.07(a)(1) (West 2011). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court assessed 

punishment at ten years’ imprisonment. The trial court later placed appellant on shock 

probation. The State later moved to revoke community supervision, alleging appellant violated 

several conditions. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motion. The 
-2-

trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and assessed 

punishment at ten years’ imprisonment.

In her sole issue, appellant contends the judgment revoking community supervision 

should be modified to delete a $2,000 fine. The State agrees the judgment should be modified as 

appellant requests.

The trial court’s original judgment includes a $2000 fine. When a trial court pronounces

and imposes a fine at the original plea hearing, the court is not required to repronounce the fine 

at the conclusion of the revocation hearing. See Davis v. State, 977 S.W.2d 859, 861 (Tex. App.-

Dallas 1998, no pet.). However, although the original plea agreement provided for a $2,000 fine, 

the trial court, when pronouncing sentence on February 21, 2011, did not orally pronounce the 

$2,000 fine. Thus, the $2,000 fine should not have been included in the original judgment. See 

Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (When a conflict exists between 

the oral pronouncement and the judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.).

Because the $2,000 fine was not properly included in the original judgment, it should not 

have been carried over to the judgment revoking community supervision. See Davis, 977 

S.W.2d at 861; Coffey, 979 S.W.2d at 328. We sustain appellant’s sole issue. We modify the 

judgment revoking community supervision to delete the $2,000 fine. See TEX. R. APP. P.

43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). 
-3-

As modified, we affirm the judgment revoking community supervision.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

131333F.U05

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
-4-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

SHIRLEY ANN ALFARO, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01333-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F10-62798-W).

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, 

Justices Bridges and Francis participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment revoking community 

supervision is MODIFIED as follows:

The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “None.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment revoking community supervision.

Judgment entered July 28, 2014.