1 ... S ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 06- 386- CR
R AND AL LK E I T H J OL L Y AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CRI M I NA LCO URT NO . 5 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A j u ry c o n v i c ted A p p e l l a n t R a n d a l l K e i th J o l l yo f as sa u l t bo d i l yi n j u ry to a f am i l y m em ber , and t he t r i al cou rts ent enc ed hi m t o 120 days ’ co nf i nem ent i n j ai l . I n s i x i ss ues , Jol l y a r gue s t hatt he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on by
u n c o n s t i t u t i o nal l y r es t r i ct i ng hi s cr os s- exa m i nat i on a nd a t t em pt ed i m pea chm ent2

oft he com pl ai nan t and er r ed by r equ i r i ng hi m t o a t t end co uns el i ng a s partof h i s s e n te n c e . W e w i l l a ffir m . Jol l y , h i s d a u g h t e rM i n d y , a n d M i n d y ’ s i n f a n tc h i l d a t t e n d e d a b i r t hday p a rt ya t a r e la t iv e ’s r e s id e n c e o n D e c e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 . M in d yh a d g iv e n J o lly
a rid e t o t h e p a rt y , b u ts h e le f tw it h o u th im t o r e t u r n t o J o lly ’s h o u s e s o m e t im e ar oun d 1 0: 00 p. m . Jol l y r et ur ned t o hi s hou se abou t an hou rl at er , angr y t hat M i ndy had l eftt he pa rty w i th o u thi m . Jo l l y c onf r ont ed M i ndy abo utl ea vi ng hi m , an d t heybe ca m e i nvol ved i n a phys i ca l con f r ont at i on, f al l i ng t o t he f l oor a n u m b e r o f ti m e s d u ri n g th e s tru g g l e . W h i l e o n th e fl o o r, J o l l yp u t h i s a rm s a ro u n d M i n d y ’s to rs o , a n d M i n d ys w u n g h e r a rm s a n d h e a d b a c ki n a n e ffo rt t o br eakf r e e . He rh e a d c o n t a c t e d J o l l y ’ s l i p , c u t t i n g i to p e n . J o l l yg r a b b ed M i n d y ’s a rm , fl i p p e d h e r o v e r, g ra b b e d h e r h a i r, a n d h i t h e r h e a d o n th e fl o o r. A ts o m e p o i n t d u r in g t h e s t r u g g le , J o llyg r a b b e d a z ip t ie a n d u n s u c c e s s f u lly att em pt ed t o pl ac e i tove rhe r . M i ndy w asab l e t o ge t aw ay, r et r i eve herch i l d, and l ea ve t he hous e. Ex t r em el y up se t , cryi ng, an d w i t h a s ubs t ant i al am ount ofbl ood o n he rs houl der s, s he f l agg ed dow n a n ea r by p ol i ceof f i ce ral ong t he
r oa d a n d i n f o r me d h i m t h a t s h e h a d b e e n a s s a u l t e d . S h o rt l y t h e r e af t er , t he
s a m e p o lic e o f f ic e rre s p o n d e d t o a 9 1 1 c a ll m a d e b y J o l l ya n d a r r e s t e d h im . M i ndy suff er ed a di sl ocat ed shoul der , a spr ai ned w r i st , and contusi ons.3

M i ndy, Jol l y, and t he r es pondi ng po l i ceof f i ce r s t es t i f i ed att r i al ab outt he event s t hatoccur r ed on D ecem ber 15 , 20 05 . Tw o def ense w i t nesses t est i f i ed abou tM i ndy’ s char act erf orvi ol ence and f or t r ut hf ul ness, opi ni ng t hatshe w as a v i ol entan d unt r ut hf u l p er so n. Dur i ng t he t r i al , t he t r i al co urts us t ai ned a
n u m b e r o f o bj e c ti o n s l o d g e d b y th e S ta te , w h i c h J o l l y n o w c o m p l a i n s o f i n p a rt
on a ppe al . I n add i t i on t o 120 day s i n j ai l , t he t r i al cou rt or der ed Jol l y t o a t t end “i n- cu s to dy BI P” aspa rtofhi s se nt enc e. The w r i t t en j udgm entdoe s not contai n t he “i n- cust ody B I P” port i on of Jol l y’ s sent ence. Jol l y a r gue s i n hi s f i r st f i ve i ss uest hatt he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on b ys u s ta i n i n g th e S ta te ’s o bj e c ti o n s to m u l t i p l e q u e s ti o n s p o s e d b yJ o l l y ’s att or ney . He con t end s t hat t he t r i al cou rt ’ s l i m i t at i on ofhi s cr os s- exa m i nat i on had t he ef f ec tofde nyi ng hi m hi s r i ghtofco nf r ont at i on a s gua r ant ee d by t he S i x th A m e n d m e n t to th e U n i te d S ta te s C o n s ti tu ti o n . S ee U. S. C ONSTam end . V I. J o ll y ar gues t hathi s “f i r stf i ve i ssues dem onst r at e uncon st i t ut i onal l i m i t at i onspl ac ed by t he t r i al cou rton [ hi s] r i ghtt o c onf r ontan d c r os s- exa m i ne t he onl y m at er i al w i t nes s i n t hi s ca se . The s e f i ve r el at ed i ss uesha d t he
cum ul at i ve ef f ec t of r es t r i ct i ng t he i nf or m at i on [ t hathe ] w asab l e t o s how t he j u ry a b o u t t h e co m p l a i n i n g w i tn e ss ’[ s] cre d i b i l i t y a n d h e r bi a s a n d m o ti v e to te s ti fya g a i n s t [h i m ].”4

A n appel l at e co u rt r evi ew s a t r i al court ’ s excl usi on of evi dence f oran a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n . Green v. S tate , 934 S. W . 2d 92, 101– 02 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 199 6) . A t r i al co urtab us esi t s di sc r et i on w hen i t ac t s w i t houtr ef er enc e t o a ny g u i d i n g ru l e s a n d p ri n c i p l e s o r a c ts a rb i tra ri l yo r u n re a s o n a b l y . Mont gom ery v. S tate , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d 3 7 2 , 3 8 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). The Si xt h A m end m ent r i ght t o con f r ont at i on nec es sa r i l y i ncl ude s t he r i ght to c ro s s -e x a m i n e . Ca rro l l v. S tate , 916 S. W . 2d 494 , 497 ( T e x . C ri m . App. 199 6) . Thi s con st i t ut i ona l r i ghti s vi ol at ed w hen ap pr opr i at e c r os s- exa m i nat i on i s l i m i te d . Id . H ow ever , const i t ut i onal er r or m ay be f or f ei t ed by f ai l ur e t o r ai se th e i s s u e a t tri a l . Bri ggs v. S tate , 7 8 9 S . W . 2 d 9 1 8 , 9 2 4 ( T e x . C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 0 ); se eals o Ho lla n d v. S tate , 802 S . W . 2d 696, 700 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 199 1) ( r ea so ni ng t hata def end antf or f ei t s hi s con sti t ut i ona l r i ghtt o c onf r ont
w i tn e s s e s i f h e d o e s n o t o bj e c t to th e d e n i a l o f th a t ri g h t a t tri a l ). A n a ppe l l at e i ss ue i nvol vi ng a pr of f er of evi den ce r at hert han an obj ec t i on
m u s t s ti l l s a ti s fy th e p re s e rv a ti o n o f e rro r re q u i re m e n ts . Re yn av. S tate , 168 S. W . 3d 173, 179 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 5) ( st at i ng t hat t he pur pos e o fr equ i r i ng a n o bj e c ti o n i s to g i v e to th e tr i a l co u rto r t h e o p p o sing p a rt ythe o p p o rt u n i ty t o cor r ectt he er r ororr em ove t he basi s f ort he obj ect i on and r easoni ng t hat “[ a] t hough t hi s ca se i nvol ves a pr of f erofev i den cer at hert han an obj ec t i on, t he
sam e r at i onal e appl i es. ”) . To pr eserve a com pl ai ntf orourr evi ew , a part y m ust5

have pr esent ed t o t he t r i al courta t i m el y r equest , obj ect i on, orm ot i on t hat st at est he sp ec i f i c g r oundsf ort he des i r ed r ul i ng i ft heyar e n otap par entf r om th e c o n te x t o f th e re q u e s t, o bj e c ti o n , o r m o ti o n . T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Mo sleyv. S tate , 9 8 3 S .W .2 d 2 4 9 , 2 6 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ),
c ert. den i

e d , 526 U . S. 1070 ( 199 9) . I ft he pr opone ntoft he evi den cedoe s not cl ea r l y a rt i cul at e t o t he t r i al co urtt hatt he C onf r ont at i on Cl aus e r equ i r est he
a d m is s io n o f t h e ch a l l e n g e d ev i d e n c e , h e fai l s to d o ev e ryth i n g n e c e ss a ry to br i ng t o t he t r i al co urt ’ s att ent i on t he evi den t i ary r ul e o rs t at ut e i n que st i on a nd i t s pr ec i sean d pr ope rap pl i ca t i on t o t he evi den cei n que st i on, an d e r r ori s not p re s e rv e d i n s u c h a c a s e . Reyna168 S . W . 3d at179. Thus , i ti s noten ough t o m er el y at t em pt t o i nt r odu ce evi dence or t o t el l t he j udg e t hatt he evi dence i sa d m i s s i b l e . Id . R a t h e r , t h e p r o p o n e n t , ifh e is t h e lo s in g p a rt yo n a p p e a l,
m u s t h a v e to l d th e tri a l c o u rt w h yth e e v i d e n c e w a s a d m i s s i b l e . Id .; Nel so n v. S tate , N o. 14- 06- 006 84- C R, 2007 W L 279036 7, at*3 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] Sept . 2 7, 2007 , pe tr ef ’ d) ( m em op. ) ( notde si gna t ed f or pub l i cat i on) . The com pl ai nton appeal m ustcom portw i t h t he com pl ai ntr ai sed
a t tri a l . Hei

del b erg v. S tate , 1 4 4 S .W .3 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). I n hi s f i r st i ss ue, Jol l y ar gue s t hat t he t r i al cou rt abu se d i t s di sc r et i on a nd d e n ie d h im h is rig h to fc o n f r o n t a t io n u n d e rt h e S ix t h A m e n d m e n tw h e n it6

pr ohi bi t ed hi m f r om cr oss- exam i ni ng M i ndy r egar di ng t he ef f ect s ofa cr i m i nal
con vi ct i on on he rl i vi ng s i t uat i on. The f ol l ow i ng e xch ang e o cc ur r ed: [ D ef ense counsel ] : M i ndy, w oul d you b e abl e t o conti nue t o st ay i n t hatpr ogr am i fyou pi ck ed up a cr i m i nal co nvi ct i on? [P ro s e c u to r]: O bj e c ti o n , re l e v a n c e . S h e ’s n o t o n tri a l fo r - - The Court : I ’ m goi ng t o s us t ai n t hatobj ec t i on. [ D ef ense counsel ] : M i ndy, goi ng back t o t he f i r st physi cal cont act oft hatni ghtat t he hous e, w ho w as t he f i r stpe r so n t o t ouc h w ho? A nd I don’ tm ean push, shove, butw ho m ade t he f i r stphysi cal c o n tac t? I n hi s se con d i ss ue, Jol l y a r gue s t hatt he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on a n d d e n ie d h im h is r ig h t o fc o n f r o n t a t io n u n d e rt h e S ix t h A m e n d m e n tw h e n it pr ohi bi t ed hi m f r om cr oss- exam i ni ng M i ndy r egar di ng hert est i m ony o n di r ect
exa m i nat i on a bouthi s cul pab l e m ent al s t at e. The f ol l ow i ng e xch ang e o cc ur r ed: [D e f e n s e c o u n s e l]: W h e n y o u s a y t h a t y o u rd a d p u tt h is z ip t ie ove ryou , you ca n’ ts ay --i s i t t r ue t hat you sa i d you don’ tkn ow w hathi s i nt ent i ons w er e? [ M i ndy] : I can’ tst at e hi s i nt ent i ons. [ D ef ense counsel ] : S o you don ’ t f eel t hathe w as doi ng i tt o choke you? [P r o s e c u t o r ]: O bje c t io n . S h e s t a t e d s h e d o e s n ’t k n o w w h a th is i nt ent i ons w er e. The Court : I ’ l l s us t ai n. I t hi nk sh e’ s ans w er ed t hatque st i on.7

N ow , i fyou’ r e at a poi nt w her e you can ’ tgo any f urt her , t el l m e, and w e’ l l t ake a br eak. [ D ef ense counsel ] : I ’ m not--j usta m om ent , Judg e. O h, M i ndy, w hen you com m ent ed t hat your dad m adea st at em ent l a s t ti m e y o u w e re a t c o u rt, - - I n hi s t hi r d i ss ue, Jol l y ar gue s t hat t he t r i al cou rt abu se d i t s di sc r et i on a nd d e n ie d h im h is rig h to fc o n f r o n t a t io n u n d e rt h e S ix t h A m e n d m e n tw h e n it d e n i e d h i m t h e o p p o rt u n i t yt o i mp e a c h M i n d ywi t h a n a d mi s s i o n a g a i nst i nt er es t . Jol l y so ught t o i m pea ch M i ndy by q ues t i oni ng a t hi r d pa rt y a boutt he ci r cum st ances sur r oun di ng hera s s a u lt ofa r oom m at e because t he S t at e had el i ci t ed t es t i m ony abo utM i ndy’ s con vi ct i on f ort he as sa ul t , i ncl udi ng t he j us t i f i ca t i onsf orM i ndy’ s con d u cti n t hatca se . The f ol l ow i ng e xch ang e occ ur r ed out si de t he pr es enc e o ft he j ur y: [ D ef ens e c ouns el ] : Butasf aras th a tgoe s, butw hatab outt he occ as i on w her e s he ca m e a nd s he

-- M i n d y ’ s t es t i f i ed t hatt he r ea so n sh e as sa ul t ed Br i t t any w as bec aus e sh e gr abb ed her by t he a rm s . S h e a d m i tte d - - Th e C ourt : N o. W e’ r e not get t i ng i nt o any speci f i cs ofany ot her i nci dences. [D e f e n s e c o u n s e l]: B u tin t h isc a s e , J u d g e , it ’s s p e c if ic a lly i m pea chm ent . She sa i d onet hi ng. Ther e’ s a w i t nes s t hat t el l s you t her e’ s an adm i ssi on agai nsti nt er est , t he opp osi t e. The Court : No. I ’ m notgoi ng t o ge ti nto t hat . She pl ed no contes tt o i ti n a cr i m i nal court . So t hatshoul d m at t erm or e t han anyt hi ng el se att hi s poi nti n t i m e.8

[ D ef ens e Couns el ] : Buts he t es t i f i ed. The Court : No, I ’ ve r ul ed. [ D ef ens e Couns el ] : O ka y. I n hi s f ourt h i ss ue, Jol l y a r gue s t hat t he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on a n d d e n ie d h im h is r ig h t o fc o n f r o n t a t io n u n d e rt h e S ix t h A m e n d m e n tw h e n it pr ohi bi t ed hi m f r om quest i oni ng M i ndy ab out herpr open si t y f orvi ol ence orpast vi ol entbe hav i or . The f ol l ow i ng e xch ang e o cc ur r ed: [ D ef ens e c ouns el ] : Ev erbe hav e l i ket hatbe f or e, M i ndy? [ Pr osecut or ] : O bj ect i on, r el evance. The Court : Sus t ai ned . I n hi s f i ft h i ss ue, Jol l y ar gue s t hat t he t r i al cou rt abu se d i t s di sc r et i on a nd d e n ie d h im h is rig h to fc o n f r o n t a t io n u n d e rt h e S ix t h A m e n d m e n tw h e n it pr ohib it ed hi m f r om quest i oni ng M i ndy ab out pr i orassaul tal l egat i ons agai nst her . The f ol l ow i ng e xch ang e o cc ur r ed: [ D ef ense coun sel ] : M i ndy, have you ever assaul t ed anyon e bef or e? [ Pr osecut or ] : O bj ect i on, r el evance. The Court : Sus t ai ned . [ D ef ens e c ouns el ] : Ju dge , i tgoe s t o cha r ac t er . I tgoe s t o pa t t er n. I n each i nst ance abov e, Jol l y neverar gued t hat t he C onfr ontat i on C l ause dem anded adm is s io n oft he evi dence t hathe sought t o i nt r odu ce.9

C o n s e q u e n t ly , t h e t r ia l c o u rtn e v e rh a d t h e o p p o rt u n it yt o ru le u p o n t h is
r at i onal e. Because Jol l y f ai l ed t o ra i se att r i al t he C onfr ontat i on C l ause ar gum entt hathe now as se rt s o n a p p e al , he di d notpr es erve t hi s i ss ue f or a p p e l l a te re v i e w . See Re yna , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d at 1 7 9 . W e o v e rr u l e J o ll y ’s fi rst,
s e c o n d , f o u rt h , a n d f if t h is s u e s . A s t o J o lly ’s t h i r d is s u e , t o t h e e x t e n tJ o lly
ar gues t hat he w as deni ed hi s r i ght of confr ontat i on, w e over r ul e hi s t hi r d i ssue. I n hi s t hi r d i ss ue, J o l l y a r gue s t hatt he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on
w hen i tpr ohi bi t ed Jol l y f r om aski ng a d e fe n s e w i t ness i fM i ndy tol d hert hat sh e h ad as sa ul t ed t he com pl ai nan ti n M i ndy’ s as sa ul tc a s e be ca us e t he
com pl ai nan tha d t ol d M i ndy t hats he w as an unf i tpa r entan d notbe ca us e t he
com pl ai nant had gr abbed M i ndy’ s daughterby t he ar m . Th e gener al r ul e i s t hat
a p a rtyi s n o t e n ti tl e d to i m p e a c h a w i tn e s s o n a c o l l a te ra l m a tte r. Ram i rezv. S tate , 802 S . W . 2d 674, 675 (T e x . C r i m . A pp. 1990 ) . How eve r , w hen a
w i t ness l eaves a fal se i m pr essi on con cer ni ng a m at t err el at i ng t o hi s orher
cr edi bi l i t y, t he oppos i ng part y m ay att em ptt o c or r ec tt hatf al sei m pr es si on on cross-exam i

nati on . Id . at67 6. “[ T] he op p o n e n tm ustcor r ectt he ‘ f al se i m p r e s s i o n ’ t h r o u g h c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n o ft h e wi t n e s s wh o l e f tt h e f al se i m p re s s i o n , n o t b yc a l l i n g o th e r w i tn e s s e s to c o r r e c t th a t fa l s e i m p re s s i o n .” W h e eler v. S tate , 67 S. W . 3d 879, 885 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2002 ) . To t he ext ent t hatJol l y does not r ai se a r i ght ofconf r ontat i on ar gum enti n t hi s i ssue, t he t r i al10

courtdi d not abuse i t s di scr et i on bypr ohi bi t i ng Jo l l y f r om at t em pt i ng t o cor r ect t he al l eged f al se i m pr essi on t hatM i nd y leftabout t he ci r cum st ances sur r oun di ng herassaul tcase by quest i oni n g a th i r d part y abou tt he f al se i m pr essi on i n an at t em pt t o cor r ecti t . A ccor di ngl y, w e over r ul e t he r em ai nder ofJol l y’ s t hi r d i ssue. I n hi s si xt h i ssue, Jol l y ar gues t hatt he t r i al courter r ed w hen i t m ade an
o ra l p ro n o u n c e m e n t o f s e n te n c e re q u i ri n g h i m to a tte n d “ i n -c u s to d yB IP ” (a batt er er s’ i nt erven t i on pr ogr am ) w hi l e he se r ved hi s se nt enc e bec aus e a t t end i ng c o u n s e li n g is n o ta f o r m o fp u n is h m e n tin c lu d e d f o rt h e o f f e n s e o fa s s a u lt bodi l y i nj ur y. He as ksust o s t r i ke t he cou ns el i ng r equ i r em ent , buthe al so pr ays t hatw e r ever se hi s convi ct i on and sent ence. S e c ti o n 1 2 .0 1 o f t h e p e n a l c o d e p rov i d e s th a t “[a ] p e rso n ad j u d g e d g u i l ty of an of f ense undert hi s code shal l be puni shed i n accor dance w i t h t hi s chapt er and t he C ode ofC r i m i nal Pr ocedu r e. ” T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 12. 01 ( V er non 2 0 0 3 ). W it h c e rt a in e x c e p t io n s in a p p lic a b le h e r e , t h e o f f e n s e o f a s s a u ltb o d ily i n j u ryi s a c l a s s A m i s d e m e a n o r. S e eid . § 2 2 .0 1( a) ( 1) , ( b) . A cl ass A
m i sd em ea norca r r i es w i t h i t a f i ne not t o exc ee d $4, 000 , co nf i nem enti n j ai l f or a te rm n o t to e x c e e d o n e y e a r, o r b o th a fi n e a n d c o n fi n e m e n t. Id . § 12 . 21. Th e r equi r em entt hatJol l y at t end “i n- cust ody B I P” dur i ng hi s 12 0- day
s e n t e n c e is t h u s n o ta u t h o r iz e d b yla w , w h ic h t h e S t a t e h a s e s s e n t ia lly11

c o n c e d e d . S e eid . A s e n te n c e n o t a u th o ri z e d b yl a w is u n e n f o r c e a b l e . S ee Mi zel l v. S tate , 1 1 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). A l th o u g h t h e tr i a l co u rtm a d e an o ral p ron o u n c e m e n t r e q u i ri n g J o l l yto att end “ i n- cus t ody BI P, ” t he w r i t t en j udgm ent doe s not con t ai n t hi s port i on of t he sent ence. G ener al l y, an or al pr ono uncem entofa sent ence w i l l cont r ol over t he w r i t t en j udgm ent , an d t he so l ut i on w hen t her e i s a c onf l i cti s t o m odi f y t he
w r i t t en j udgm entt o c onf orm t o t he se nt enc e t hatw asor al l y pr onoun ce d. T h o mp so nv. S tate , 1 0 8 S .W .3 d 2 8 7 , 2 9 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ); Cof f ey v. S tate , 979 S . W . 2d 326, 328 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1998 ) . Butnot hi ng i n Coff ey suggest s t hati ft he or al pr ono uncem ent of a sent ence i s l egal l y unen f or ceabl e, as i n t he pr esentcase, t he un e n fo rceabl e or al pr ono uncem entnonethel ess p rev a il s o v e r an en fo rce a b l e w ri tten se n ten c e as se t f o rt h i n the j u d g m e n t. Ri b el in v. S tate , 1 S .W .3 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 5 n .2 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 9 , p e t.
r ef ’ d) . The sent ence t hat a def endan tserves i s based on i nf or m at i on con t ai ned i n th e w ri tte n j u d g m e n t. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art . 42. 01, § 1 ( V er non 2 0 0 6 ). H er e, th e w ri tt en j udgm enti s enf or ce abl e b ec aus e i tf al l s w i t hi n t he sta tu to ry ran g e o f p u n i sh m e n t fo r a c l a ss A m i sd e m e a n o r. T h e re i s n o th i n g to
s u g g e s tt h a tt h e le g a llyu n e n f o r c e a b le o r a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t o f s e n t e n c e c o n t r o ls
ove r Jol l y’ s w r i t t en se nt enc e. The St at e has not ar gue d as m uch , an d w e h ave2 ... Li ke t he app el l anti n T u fele v. S tate , Jol l y r equ es t s t hatw e s t r i ket he or a l p r on ou nc e m e n t o f sen t e nc e r e qu i r i ng h i m t o a t t e nd c ou ns e l i ng . 130 S . W . 3d 26 7 (T ex. A pp. — H oust on [ 14 t h D i st . ] 20 04 , no pet . ) . I n t hatcase, d u ri n g i ts o ral p ron o u n c e m e n t of se n ten c e , t h e tr i a l co u rto rde red T u fel e to d i sp l a ytw o p h o to g rap h s o f t h e “v ic t im ” in h i s c e l l for a t l e a st th e fi rst t w o y e a rs o f i n c a rc e ra ti o n . Id . at 272 . The t r i al co urt ’ s w r i t t en j udgm entdi d not c o n ta i n th i s p o rti o n o f th e s e n te n c e . Id . at27 4. The cou rtofappeal s st r uck t hat port i on of hi s sent ence because t hey had no w ay of kn o w in g w het her a p p e l l a n t, w h o w a s s e rvi n g h i s s e n ten c e , h a d b e e n req u i red to d i sp l a ythe tw o p h o to g ra p h s . Id . Here , J o l l y i s f r eeon b ond p end i ng a ppe al . Bec aus e t he 12 f ound no a ut hor i t y s uppo rti n g thatco ncl us i on a f t erco nduc t i ng ou row n res e a rch . C o n se q u e n tl y , b e c a u se ( 1 ) th e o ral p ron o u n c e m e n t r e q u i ri n g J o l l yto
a t t e n d “ in -c u s t o d yB I P ” is u n e n f o r c e a b le , ( 2 ) t h e w r it t e n ju d g m e n tis
e n f o r c e a b le , a n d (3 ) w e h a v e f o u n d n o a u t h o r i t y s h o w in g t h a tt h e le g a lly
unen f or ceabl e or al pr ono uncem ent of sent ence contr ol s over t he w ritt en ju d g m e n t , t o t h e e x t e n t J o lly a r g u e s t h a t h is s e n t e n c e is v o id , w e c a n o n lyh o ld th a t th e tri a l c o u rt’s e rro r i n o ra l l yp ro n o u n c i n g s e n te n c e d i d n o t a ffe c t J o l l y ’s
s u b s ta n ti a l ri g h ts . S ee T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 4 .2 (b ); T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 4 2 .0 1 , § 1 ; T

u cker v. S tate , No. 05- 02- 00616

- CR, 05- 02- 00617

- CR, 2003 W L 424 38, at*3 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l asJa n. 7, 200 3, pet r ef ’ d) ( not des i gna t ed f or pub l i cat i on) ( hol di ng t hatt r i al court ’ s er r ori n or al l y pr ono unci ng sent ence o u tsi d e o f pu n i sh m e n t r a n g e d i d n o t affec t ap p e l l a n t’ s s u b sta n t ia l ri g h ts bec aus e s ent enc e i m pos ed by w r i t t en j udgm ent w as w i t hi n s t at ut or y r ang e o f p u n i s h m e n t). W e over r ul e Jol l y’ s si xt h i ssue. 2se n ten c e tha t J o l l y w i l l se rve i s b a se d o n i n fo rm a ti o n i n the w ri tten j u d g m e n t,

see a rt i c l e 42. 01, § 1, cod e o fcr i m i nal pr oce dur e, an d t he w r i t t en j udgm ent does not m ent i on i n- cust ody BI P, w e decl i ne t o “st r i ke” t he of f endi ng l angu age, “You a l so w i l l do i n- cus t ody BI P w hi l e y ou’ r e i n j ai l , ” f r om t he r epo rt er ’ s r ec or d.

13 H a v i n g o v e rr u l e d all o f Jo l l y ’s i ss u e s, w e affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL F: HO LM A N , W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J un e 19, 2008