## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 21

- 00086

- CR

PATRICK BRANDON JR. , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 47992

- A

Befo re Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memoran dum Opinion on Remand by Justice Rambin2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND
After a jury found Patrick Brandon, Jr., guilty of possession of a controlled substance
with the intent to deliver, possession of a controlled substanc e, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon , he was sentenced to twenty years ’ , five years ’ , and ten years ’ imprisonment , respectively, and fined $10,000 .00 , $5,000 .00 , and $10,000 .00 , respectively. Brandon v. State , No. 06

- 21

- 00086

- CR, 2 022 WL 2231189, at *1 n.1 , 4 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana June 22, 2022 ) ( mem. op., not designated for publication) , overruled in part by PD

- 034 1

- 22, 2022 WL
169 54548 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 16, 2022) (per curiam )

. In the same trial court proceeding , Br a ndon was also convicted of aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to sixty years’
confinement and orde red to pay a $10,000 .00 fine

. Brand o n v. State , No. 06

- 21

- 00085

- CR, 2022
WL 2231193 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana June 22, 2022) ( mem. op., not designated for pub l ication)

. On appeal, Brandon maintained, among other things, that the trial court erred when it
stacked his fines on all four offens e s
. We agreed , found that there was partial error in the trial court’s judg ments below, and modified the court’s ju dgme n ts and bill of costs by striking (1) the $10,000.00 fine on the judgment memorializing Brandon ’ s conviction of possess ion of a
controlled substanc e with intent to d eliver (Count I), (2) the $5,000.00 fine on the judgment memorializing his conviction of po s session of a controlled substance (Count II), and (3) the $10,000.00 fine on the judgment memorializing his conviction of unlawful possession of a
f irearm by a felon (Count III )

. As modified, we affirmed the trial court’s judgments. 1 The

1 In t he judgment memorial izing Brandon ’ s conviction of pos session of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver (Cou nt I) , we also (1) d ele t ed the assessed $15.00 time payment fee from the judgment and th e bil l of costs associated with it and (2) modified the judgment to reflect that Brandon pled “true” to the State’s enhancement3

$10,000 .00 fine assessed as a result of Brandon ’ s conviction of aggravated robbery remained in the judgment against him

. The Sta te filed a pe tition for discretionary review, mainta i ning that t he Texas Court of Criminal Appeals should reverse our o pinion d eleting the $1 0 ,000 .00 fine (Count I) , the $5,000 .00 fine (Count II) , and the $10,00 0 .00 fine (Count III) contained in Brandon’s judgments
of conv i ction

. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State’s pet i tion for discretionary review , noting that this Court d i d not have the benefit of the ruling in An astassov at
the time we issue d our opinion

. See An astassov v. State , No. PD

- 0848

- 20 , 2022 WL 50 54846 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 5, 2022) (abrogati ng cases that deleted concurrent fines) . Accordingly,
the Texas Court o f Criminal Appeals remanded this cause to us in light of An astassov.
W e provided a detailed recitation of the facts in this case in our o pinion on original
submission and do not recount them h ere. Brandon , 2 022 WL 2231189, at *1

. The sole issue
we add r ess on remand is whether th is Court correctly deleted the fines assessed against Brandon in the judgments of conviction relating to c ounts I, II , and I I I.
The Texas Penal Code re quires sentences for offenses arising out of the same criminal episode that are prosecuted in a single criminal action to be served concurrently. T EX

. P ENAL
C ODE A NN

. § 3.03(a) (Supp.). 2 “ [ T ] he concurrent se ntence s provision of Sectio n 3.03 ( a) applies

pa ragraph rather than “not true .” Our d eletion of the time payment fee and m odification of Brandon’s plea were appropriate and w ere not disturbed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

.
2 Section 3.03(a) states,
When the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode pr osecuted in a sin gle criminal action, a sen t ence for each offense fo r which he has been4

to the entire sentence, includi ng fines. ” State v. Crook , 248 S.W.3d 172, 17 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Where multiple fines are assessed in a same

- criminal

- episode prosecution and they are
ordered to be discha rged concurrently, they discharg e in the same manner as concurrent terms of

c onfinement

— the defendant pays the greatest amo u nt of the fine but receives credit for satisfying all of the multiple concurrent fines. I d

. However , each judgment must include th e fine actually im posed, and th e cou r ts of appeals may not delete a lawfully assessed concurrent
fine from a trial court’s j udgment in order to protect against possible improper stacking of fines. 3
An a s tassov , 2022 WL 505 4846, at *3

. Therefore, i n accord ance with An a s ta ssov , we affirm all
of the fines imposed by the trial court

. 4
For the rea s ons s t at ed in our original opin i on, we delete the $15.00 time payment fee
contained in the total cos ts in the judg m e n t memor ializing Brandon ’ s co nviction of possession of
a controlled substance with int ent to deliver (Count I) and the bill of costs associated with i t

. We
also modify th e judgment memorializing Brandon’ s convic tion o f possession of a contr olled substance with the intent to deliver (C ount I ) to refl e c t that B randon ple d “true” to th e State’s
enhance ment paragraph rather t han “not true

. ”

found g uilty shall be pronounced. Except as provided in Subsection (b) , the sentences shall run concurrently.
T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 3.03(a). S ubsection (b) relate s specifically to the offenses of intoxicat i on assault and intoxicat i on manslaughter, neither o f which are involved in this case. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 3.03( b ).

3 “If defendants are b eing improperly subjected to consecutive fines in conflict with the t rial court’s judg ments in a given case, the proper course is to purs u e relief through a writ of habeas corpus.” An astassov , 2022 WL 5054846, at *6.

4 The $10, 000 .00 fine assess ed against Brandon as a result of his conviction for aggrav ated robbery remains in the judgment as stated in our o pinion in appellate cause number 0 6

- 21

- 00085

- CR

.5

As modified, w e a ffirm the trial c ourt ’ s jud gment s
.

Jeff Rambin Justic e Date S ubmitted : January 3, 2023 Date Decided: April 4 , 2023
Do Not Publish