### NUM BER 13-07- 0057 5-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
DA NIEL L . SA ENZ , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 36 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of Sa n Patricio C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef o re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Dan iel L. Saenz , w as char g ed byindi ctmentw it h one countof ag g ra v ated
sex ual as saul t of a c h ild , a sec ond deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22. 011 (a)(2), (f) (Vernon Supp . 200 7). By one issue, Sa enz co n t e n d s that this Court shou ld rema nd th is c a s e f o r a n ew pun ishm ent hea ring beca use th ere w as a con f lict betw een t he or al p ro n o u n cement s made by the tr ial co urt atthe subs eq uent re v ocat ion2

he ar i ng a nd t he w r i tt en j ud g me nt

. W e affi r m. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On F ebr uar

y 7, 2006, Saenzw as ind ic ted for one countof a g g ra v ated sex ual
ass aul t of a c hil d, a sec ond deg re e felony

. See id. § 22 .011( a) (2 ), ( f). On J une 9, 2006, the t ri al cour

t, in acc or dance w it h Saen z ’s pl e a a gre e m e n t, deferr ed findi ng s o f gui lt , pla ced Saenzon c ommunit y su per v is ion for e ig ht y ear s, and impos ed a fine of $1,50 0.00 and ordered $1,8 76. 00 in restitu tion. On Sept em ber 7, 2 007 , in respon se t o t h e Sta te’s moti on to r ev oke, the tri a l court re v oked Saenz ’s co mmunity su per v is ion and sent enced him to t en y ear s’ i mpri sonment “a lon g w it h pay ment of the unpai d bal ance of anyfine t o be i mposed in thi s c ase, co sts and re sti tuti on.” At the re v ocat ion hear ing on S eptember 7, 20 07, t he tr ial co urt i nformed Sa enz that : “[ y ]our co mmunity

se rv ic e i s h er eby

r ev oked, y ou’re sen ten ced to ten y ears[‘] imprisonm ent alon g w ith payme nt of the unp aid ba lance of anyfine t o be impos ed i n thi s cas e, cost s and rest it uti on.” In its w ri tten Adj udi cat ion of Gui lt , t he tr ial cour

t not ed th at S aenz w as sent enced to ten y ear s i n the Tex as Dep artment of Cri min al Justice-In stitutio nal Div ision, a $1, 500 .00 f ine w as imp osed , and $1,8 76. 00 in
re sti tuti on w as or der ed. Al so, on September 7, 2007, the t ri al cour

t c erti fied Sae nz ’s r ig ht to appeal

. The re cor d does not demonstr ate that Saenz f il ed a moti on f or newtri al. On September

14, 2007, Saenzfil ed hi s n oti ce of appeal . Thi s a ppeal ens ued. II. A PPLI C A B LE L AW Article 42. 02 o f

the cod e of criminal procedu re provides tha t a “sente nce is tha t part of the j udg ment, or

or der r ev oki ng a s usp ensi on of the impos it ion of a s entenc e, t hat
or der s t hat t he puni shmentbe ca rrie d i nto e x ecut ion i n the manner pr esc ri bed by

l aw .” T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art 42. 02 ( Ver non 200 6)

. Mo re ov er , ar ti cl e 42. 03 of the codeAr t i cl e 42

. 14 o f t he c od e of cr i m i nal pr ocedur e al l ows t he se nt ence t o be pr onoun ced i f t he 1 d e fe n d a n t i s n o t p re s e n t i n a m i s d e m e a n o r c a s e
. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 42

. 14 (Ve rno n 2 00 6). H owev er , ar t i cl e 42

. 14 i s i nappl i cabl e i n t hi s case— a f el ony case. 3 of criminal proce dure provi des th at th e sen ten ce sha ll be prono unce d in the def end ant ’s pr esenc e, ex ceptas pr ov ide d i n a rt ic le 42.14. Id. ar t. 42.03 (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. In 1 addi ti on , Te x a s c o u rt s h a v e h e l d t h a t w h e n t h e r e i s a v a r i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e or al pr onounc ement an d the w ri tten memori ali z ati on of the sent ence, the or al pr onounc ement cont ro ls

. Cof

fey v. Sta te , 979 S.W .2d 326 , 328 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98).

III . A N AL Y S IS By his sol e iss ue, Saenz asser ts thatbec ause the t ri al cour t di d notpr onounc e tha t it had adj udi cat ed him in open cour t, thi s cas e s houl d be re manded for a new se ntenc ing hear ing

. T he reco rd re f lects tha t the court did, in fa ct, orally pron oun ce Sae nz’s sent ence in open c our

t athi s c ommunit y

su per visio n r ev ocat ion hear ing at w hic h he w as pr esent

. Spe cif ically , t h e c o urt state d, “[y]our comm unity serv ice is hereby r evoked, you’re sent enced to ten y ear s impr is onment alo ng w it h pay ment of t he unpai d bal ance of anyfine to be i mposed in thi s c ase, co sts and re sti tuti on.” F urther more, i n c ompar ing the w ri tten jud g ment of the cour

t w it h the C o urt’ s o ra l pr onounc ement, ther e i s n o c onfli ct. In both instan ces, th e cou rt revoked S aen z ’s co mm unity su pervisi on, se nte nced h im to te n y ears’ impr is onment, and i mposed a fine and r est it uti on. Saenzr eli e s on the hol din g s i n Tay lor v. Sta te , 13 1 S. W .3 d 49 7, 5 02 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2004) and Ibar

ra v. Sta te , 177 S.W .3d 2 82, 2 84 ( Tex

. App.–H oust on [1s t D is t.] 2005, no p et.), to supp ort his cont ent ion that be cause the ora l pronou ncem ent of his sente nce
a lle ged ly dif

f e re d f ro m th e w ri t t e n j u d g m e n t, he is e n ti tl e d to a n e w se n te n cin g he a rin g.W e a l s o n o t e t h a t S a e n z ’ s s e n t e n c e i s w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r i l y p r e s c r i b e d r a n g e ; t her ef or e, u n l i ke 2 I ba rr a , t he t ri al co urt he re di d n ot i m po s e a voi d s en t en c e
. S e e Ib a rra v . S ta te , 177 S. W

. 3d 2 82, 284 ( T ex. A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.); see a l so T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 12

. 33( a) ( Ver non 2003) ( pr ov i di ng t hat “ [ a] n i ndi v i dual adj udged gui l t y of a f el ony of t he second degr ee sh al l be puni shed by i m pr i sonm ent i n t he i ns t i t uti on al di vi s i on for an y t erm of no t m ore t ha n 2 0 y ea rs o r l es s t ha n 2 y ea rs”). 4 How ev er , t hese cas es ar e noton poi nt becau se Saenzfail ed to es tabl is h tha t any v ar iat ion betw een t he or al pr onounc ement of hi s s entenc e and the w ri tten ju dg ment actual ly ex is ted. The Tay lor co urt s peci fical ly

note d tha t w hen a v ar iat io n e xist s b etw een t he or al pr onounc ement of the se ntenc e and the writ te n j udg ment, the o ra l pr onounc ement cont ro ls

. See T

ayl or , 131 S.W .3d a t 500

. T h e re f o re , had a v ar iat ion ac tual ly ex is ted, Saenzw oul d notbe e nti tl ed to a ne w se ntenc in g hear ing g iv en th at t he tr ial co urt’ s o ra l pr onounc ement w oul d c ontr ol. See id; see als o H enkel v. Sta te , N o. 13 -0 3- 112- CR , 200 5 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 2 883, at * 15 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Apr . 14, 2005, pet. r ef’d) ( noti ng that, i n the ev ent o f a v ar iat ion betw een t he w ri tten jud g ment and the or al pr onounc ement of the senten ce, w e are autho riz ed to: “(1) mo dif y the trial court’s judgm ent and af f irm it
as modified ; or

( 2) r emand for the t ri al cour t t o make fact d eter minat ion s a s t o w hether the
w ri tten memori ali z ati on r eflect s w hat a ctu all y oc cur re d.” ) (i nter nal ci tati ons omit ted)

. Iba rra , on th e oth e r hand , inv olved a situatio n w here the trial court f ailed to orally pr onounc e a fin e i n open cour t, y et i mposed a fine in the w ri tten jud g ment. Iba rra , 177 S. W .3 d 2 8 2 a t 283

. Base d on thi s mi sta ke, the appel lat e c our t c oncl uded t hat t he tr ial court ha d erred in no t a s sessing the f ine in the oral prono unce me nt of the ap pellan t’s sent ence as re q uir ed by st atute

. Id. at 284. As a r esul t, the a ppel lat e c our t v acat ed th e tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment and r emanded t he c ase for a new pu n ishm ent h ear ing

. Id at 284. Her e, un li ke Iba rra , no variation existed be tw een the o ra l p rono unce me nt of Saen z ’s sent ence and t he w ri tten jud g ment. 25

Addi ti onal ly , Sa enz ar g ues that the tr ial courtw as re q uir ed to st ate a t t he s entenc ing hear ing thati t had “ adj udi cat ed” hi s g uil t and w as impos ing hi s se n te n ce
. W e ar e not
aw ar e of, nor does Saenz cite to, anyauthori ty req uir ing the tr ial courtto spec ific all y st ate t h e t e r m “a d ju d ic a t e ” i n e it h e r p h a s e o f a cr im in a l t ri a l. Ba s e d o n t h e f o re go in g, we conclu de th at Sa enz is not entitle d to a n ew pun ishm ent hea ring. Accordingly , w e overrule his sole issue o n ap pea l. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 12t h day

of June, 2008.