See Tex
. Penal Cod e Ann. § 21.07 (V er non 200 3)
. An offense under thi s s ect ion 1 is puni shabl e by

co nfinement in jai l not t o ex ceed one year , a fine notto ex ceed $4000, or bot h. T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 12. 21 (Ve rnon 200 3). NOS. 07 -08-04 28-CR; 07-0 8-04 29-CR; 07-0 8-04 30-CR; 07-0 8-04 31-CR

IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D JU LY16, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ T HOMAS R. JOHNSON, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR TAT LAW #1 OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 8- 450,511 , 200 8- 450,513 , 200 8- 450,517 , 200 8- 450,887 ; HO NO RA BLE L AR RY

B. (R US TY)LAD D, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Ni ne s eparatel y-f ile d in fo rm a ti o n s ch a rge d ap p ell ant ThomasJo hnson w it h ni ne acts of publi c l ewdness , co mmitt ed ov er a pe ri od of a p p ro xi matel y one y ear

ag ain st nin e 1 different v icti ms. W aiv ing a j ur y , app ella n t e n tered an open pl ea of g uil ty to the n ine charg es. The t ri al cour t ass ess ed puni shment at 365 days in jai l in each of t he nin e c ases2

and, in four of the nin e, s uspen ded t he s entenc es. The t ri al cour t ordered s o m e of the sent ences to be s er

v ed c oncur re ntl y

and others c onsec uti v ely
. Thro u gh one is sue, appel lan t c ontends the tr ial co urt’ s o rd e r cumulati ng the sent ences i s void . The S tate agrees, con cedin g the t rial cou rt e nte red an invalid cum ulatio n orde r, and a sks us to reform the j udg ments and affirm them as reformed. W e w il l do s o. Backg ro und On A ug ust19, 2008, the t ri al cour t c all ed all ni ne c ause numbers for tr ial
. Appel lan t ind ic ated he woul d plead g uil ty to each of the offenses and re q uest ed that the c ausesbe cons oli dated int o a si n gle pl ea hear ing
. The Stat e obj ect ed to the cons oli dati on of the cause s. Both sides prese nte d argume nt and t he trial court deferred its ruling until the close of punis hment ev ide nce. The cour t admoni shed appel lan t and ac cept ed his open plea of g uil ty to each of the nin e charg es si mult aneous ly . Thereafter , the tri al cour t heard puni shmenttes ti mony from eig ht mal e w it ness es, w ho des cr ibe d the ir publ icenc ounters w it h appel lan t i n w hic h he touc hed or

sq ueez ed th eir

crotc h areas. The t ria l co u rtal so admitted t he recorded sta tement of a female w it ness , i ndi cat ing appel lan t reache d from be hin d her and touc hed her breast
. At t h e c l o s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e t r i a l c o u rt h e a rd a d d i t i o n a l a rg u me n t s from the par ti es re g ardin g w hether

the nin e c auses sh oul d be cons oli dated in to a s ing le cr imi nal act ion
. The cour

t r ule d the offenseswoul d n o t be cons oli dated and t hat s ome ofW hen t here i s a co nflict b e twe e n the oral pronounc ement of s entenc e i n open 2 court an d the sente nce se t outin the w ritten jud gmen t, the oral prono unce me nt con trols. Thom pson v. State, 108 S.W .3d 2 87, 2 90 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003)
. The sol uti on in such a si tuati on is to modi fy the j udg ment t o c onform to the tr ial co urt’ s o ra l pronounc ement. Id. O n a s eparate p ag e, af ter the jud g e’ssi g nature, an d bel ow app ell ant’ s fin g er pr int , 3 each of the four w ritten jud gmen ts cont a in s a list of the ot her thre e cau se nu mb ers follo w ed by

the phrase, “Tw enty-F our (24)Months Cumulat iv e.” W it hout reference to t he re cord, i t woul d notbe p oss ibl e to deter mine if thes e four sent ences w ere int ended to r un cons ecut iv e to one ano ther or co nsec uti v e to some o ther uni denti fied s entenc e. 3 appel lan t’ s s entenc es woul d run cons ecut iv ely to, rather

than co ncur re ntl y

w it h, hi s o ther sent ences . The sent enci ng for a ll ni ne c auses was als o c onducted si mult aneous ly . The t ri al cour t ordered appe ll ant t o s er v e the se ntenc e s im p o sed in the first fiv e c auses conc ur re ntl y . In t hose fiv e j udgm e n ts, w hic h are notappeal ed, t he c our t as ses sed puni shmentat 365 days c onfinement, w it h c re ditfor t ime ser v ed. In t he four jud g ments bei ng appeal ed, t he tr ial co urt as ses sed puni shmentat 365 days c onfin e m ent, w it h the p e ri o d o f co n f in e m e n tb e in g s u s p e n d e d i n fa vo r o f c o m m u n it y su p e rvi s io n fo r a t e rm o f two y ears. During senten cing, the trial judge said, “ T hose sent ence s are to run concu rrently butw ill be a ccum ulate d to th e oth er sente nce . . . .” Th e judge w enton to sa y , “W hen those sent ence s are over, you w ill begin a prob ate d sent ence .” T he w ritten jud gmen ts, howev er, 2 d o n o tp ro vid e e xp re s s ly fo r t h e s e n t e n c e s t o b e se rve d co n s e c u t ive to an y par ti cul ar sent ence. The t ri al cour t c ertified appel lan t’ s r ig ht of appea l as to t he four sus pended 3 sent ences and thi s a ppeal foll ow ed. For pur poses of ou r anal y si s, w e w il l treat t he w ri tten jud g ments as prov idi ng for a co nsec uti v e s e n te n ce , i.e. , t he c ommencement of the four4

appeal e d s e n t e n c e s o n a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o mp l e t i o n o f t h e fi v e c o n c u r re n ts e n t e n c e s not appeal ed. Ana lysis W e rev iew

a compl ain t abo ut c onsec uti v e s entenc es under an a buse of dis creti on sta ndard. Har

vey v. Sta te , 821 S.W .2d 389, 392 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th D is t.] 1991, pet. re f'd). G enerall y , a defendant has no r igh t to s er v e s entenc es impos ed for different offenses co ncur re ntl y ; ra ther , the deci si on to cumul ate sent ences li es w it hin the dis creti on of the tr ial co urt. Beedy v. Sta te, 250 S
. W
. 3d 1 07, 110 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 8); C ole m an v. State, 898 S.W .2d 327 , 329 (Tex.App .–T y ler 1993 ) aff’ d, 897 S.W .2d 3 19 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1995) ; see T ex. C ode Cri m. Proc. Ann . art. 42 .08 (a) (Vernon 200 6). Th is dis creti on i s a bsol ute s o l ong as cumulat iv e sentenc ing is author iz ed by l aw . See Beed

y, 250 S. W .3d a t 110 ( “[ w]h e n a t ri al jud g e l awfully exerci ses the opti on to cu mulat e, t hat decisio n i s u nass ail abl e on appeal ”) ; Nichol as v. State, 56 S. W .3d 7 60, 7 64- 65 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 Di st. ] 2001, pet. re f’d) ( hol din g sa me); acc or d R evel s v . St ate , N o. th 05- 07- 01555- CR , 200 8 W L 51773 74, a t * 8 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as Dec . 11, 2008, no p et.) (m em. op. , notdes ig nated for publ ic ati on)
. See al so Bar ro w v. State , 207 S.W .2d 3 77, 380- 81 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)( dis cus si ng tr ial co urt’ s d is creti onar y dec is ion w hether

to cum ulate sente nces).See T ex. Pen al Code Ann
. § 3.0 2(a) (Verno n 200 3) (provi ding for conso lidation ); 4 Sal azar v. St ate, 127 S. W .3d 3 55, 3 63- 64 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th D is t.] 2004, pet. re fused) ( appl y ing se cti on 3. 02)
. Sect ion 3.03( b) creates an ex cept ion that is not appl ic abl e here. See Tex . Pe nal 5 Code Ann. § 3.03 (b) (Vernon Su pp. 200 8). 5 Bu t, under

Penal C ode secti on 3. 03( a) , w hen mul ti ple offenses ar is ing out of the same cr imi nal episod e are cons oli dated for a si ng le tr ial , and the defendant i s found g uil ty 4 of more t han one of

fense, the tri al cour

t has no di sc re ti on to cu mulat e the se ntenc es. The sent ence s mustrun concu rrently. Tex. Pena l Code Ann. § 3.0 3(a) (Verno n Sup p. 20 08). 5 The appl ic abi li ty

of secti on 3.03 depends on c hoi ces made by the par ti es, beg inn ing w it h the c hoice o f

t h e S ta te t o j oin mul ti ple ch arg es in a s ing le cr imi nal acti on. Ex par te McJunkin s, 9 54 S. W .2d 39, 40 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 7). W hen a defend anthas m ultiple c h a rg e s a n d t h e t ri a l c o u rtc a ll s e a c h c a s e s e p a ra t e ly a n d h a n d le s e a c h ca s e in d ivi d u a ll y, ev en th oug h one cas e is cal led immedi atel y after the o ther , t he c ases are notprosec uted in a s ing le action. See Ex p arte Ph arr , 897 S.W .2d 7 95, 7 96 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1995)( per cur iam)(aff ir ming tri al cour t f ind ing to that effectin habeas cor pus act ion ). Howev er , “i f the facts show

the proceed ing i s a si ng le cr imi nal act ion based on c harg es ar is ing out of the sam e crimina l episod e, th e trial court ma y not ord er conse c u t iv e sen ten ces.” LaPorte v. State, 840 S.W .2d 4 12, 4 15 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992)
. See als o Bul l v. State, No. 07- 06- 0176- CR , 07- 06- 0177- CR , 200 7 W L 2296480, *3 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo Aug
. 10, 2007, pet. re f’d) (mem. op., not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( findi ng the tr ial courtabused its disc re ti on by sent enci ng appel lan t c onsec uti v ely w hen, despi te t he ab se n ce of a record s how ing that appel lan t' s two i ndi ctment s were present ed i n a s ing le p le a proce edi ng i n 1996, he was adj udi cat ed and puni shment w as seti n a s ing le uni fied proceed ing ). W hether the Stat e“C ri minal episod e” is defined t o i ncl ude, inter alia , t he repeated co mmiss ion of the 6 sam e or similar of

fense s. Te x . Pen al Code Ann. § 3.01 (Vernon 200 3). 6 g av e n o t i c e o f c o n s o l i d a t i o n u n d e r P e n a l C o d e s e ct i o n 3
. 0 2 d o e s n o td e t e r mi n e the appl ic abi li ty

of secti on 3. 03( a) ’s rest ri cti on on sent enci ng . McJunk ins , 954 S.W .2d at 41. Here, the State agrees thatthe trial court im pro p e rly cumu lated app ellant 's sent ences . In d o in g s o , the St ate a ls o does not dis pute appel lan t’ s a ss erti on th at t he of fense s w ith w hich ap pellan t w as cha rg ed f it w ithin th e legislature’s def inition o f a “sing le cr imi nal epi sode. ” See T e x. Penal C ode An n. § 3.03 (V er non Su pp. 2 008) ; Ex par te 6 Pha rr, 8 9 7 S
. W
. 2 d a t796; L aPor te, 840 S.W .2d a t 414 -1 5. The Stat e al so ag re es that altho ugh the tria l court reserv ed its ruling on app ellant ’s req uestto conso lidate , it a d m o n is h e d a p p e ll a n ta n d a c c e p t e d h is p le a s t o e a c h o f t h e n in e ch a rg e s si m u lt a n e o u s ly. Fur ther , t he tr ial co urt hea rd ev ide nce on e a ch o f t h e ni ne c harg es in the s ame pl ea proc ee di ng . L as tl y , th e tr i al c ou rt s en te nc ed a pp el l an t i n ea c h c au s e i n th e s am e proceed ing
. Thus des pit e i ts r uli ng m ade af ter punish ment ev ide nce w as present ed th at the caus es w oul d not be c onsol ida ted, the fact s s how the cour t c onducted a si ng le act ion
. LaPor te, 840 S.W .2d a t 415
. The re cord re q uires us to conc lud e the nin e caus es of acti on w ere in fact j oine d for trial in a single cri min al action , and app ellant ’s convi ction o n mu ltiple of fense s trig gered the man dat oryconcu rrent sen ten cin g re quiremen t of section 3.03 (a). See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 3.03 (V er non Su pp. 2 008) ; Robb ins, 914 S.W .2d a t 582 -8 3; L a Po rte, 840 S.W .2d a t 412 -1 5. The tr ial co urt t herefore ab used it s d is creti on by cum ulatin g app ellant ’s sente nces. An improper cumul ati on order is a v oid se ntenc e. LaPor te, 840 S.W .2d at 415. A par ty does not hav e to obj ectto a n improp er cu mulat ion order

dur ing tr ial i n order

toW hil e a d efendant c an waiv e the r ig ht to conc ur re nt sent enci ng , no one sug g est s 7 that occ urred here, an d appel lan t’ s u rg ing of cons oli dati on woul d precl ude a findi ng of w aiv er . See McJunkins, 954 S.W .2d at 42 (f inding w aiver throu gh plea ba rg ain); Ja ck son v. State, 157 S.W .3d 5 1 4 , 5 16- 17 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2005, no pet .) ( dis ti ng uis hin g McJunk ins ). 7 preser v e er ro r for appe ll ate rev iew
. McJunk ins , 954 S.W .2d a t 41 (a pprov ing h old ing of LaPor te, 840 S.W .2d a t 415 ). W hen a tr ial co urt ent ers a v oid o r u n la wful cumul ati on 7 order , t he proper re medy is del eti on of t he cumul ati on order
. See B eedy, 250 S. W .3d a t 110; LaPor

te, 840 S.W .2d a t 414 , Rob bin s v . St ate, 914 S.W .2d 5 82, 5 84 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
. See als o Pol

anco v. State, 914 S.W .2d 2 69, 2 72 n. 2 ( Tex .App. –Beaumont1996, pets . ref'd) ( del eti ng cu mulat ion order w hen t here was ev ide nce that g uil ty pl ea proceed ing s were i nter tw ine d) ; Sm it

h v . St ate , 753 S.W .2d 4 56, 4 58 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [14th D is t.] 1988, no pet.) (h old ing tr ial cour t er re d by

cu mulat ing se ntenc es at probati on re v ocat ion heari ng w hen the tw o of fenses aro se out of

same cr imi nal epi sode)
. See also Dot son v. State, No. 02- 03- 00463- CR , 2008 W L 2780663, *7 n.22 (Tex .App. –For t W orth July 17, 200 8, no pet. ) ( me m. op., not de signated for pub lication) (recogniz ing same). Acc ordi n g l y , we reform eac h of the tr ial co urt’ s four j udg ments, 2008- 450,511 , 2008- 450 ,51 3, 2008 -450 ,51 7, and 2008-4 50, 887 , to delete any portio n requiri n g a ppe llant’s sent ences to ru n c onsec uti v ely and to decree, i nst ead, that each of the s entenc es are to ru n c oncur re ntl y . As re formed, e ach of the four jud g ments is aff ir med.
Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.