In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-18-00179-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1497894D

Before Kerr, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

VICTOR ORTIZ GONZALEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

After reversing our judgment in this case and holding that appellant Victor 

Ortiz Gonzalez did not suffer egregious harm from the trial court’s charge error, the 

Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the appeal to us to address “the remaining 

issues in a manner consistent with” its opinion.

1 Gonzalez v. State, 610 S.W.3d 22, 

30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020).

Appellant’s only remaining complaint is that we should reform the inmatefunds-withdrawal order, which authorizes withdrawal of $20,319––the two 

$10,000 fines assessed by the jury and $319 in court costs––to delete one of the two

fines. See State v. Crook, 248 S.W.3d 172, 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holding that 

when trial court orders concurrent sentences, any assessed fines also run 

concurrently). The State concedes that appellant is correct, and we agree.

The trial court signed two judgments: one for aggravated assault of a public 

servant and one for evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. Although each

judgment imposes a $10,000 fine,2 both judgments also state––in accordance with the

trial judge’s oral pronouncement––that the sentences run concurrently. Because a fine 

is part of a sentence, fines running concurrently may not be added to each other;

1

On remand, the court assigned Justices Bassel and Womack to the panel in 

place of Justices Lee Gabriel and Mark Pittman, who no longer serve on this court. See

Tex. R. App. P. 39.8(d).

2

Only the aggravated-assault judgment imposes court costs. See Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.073(a).
3

instead, the defendant is obligated to pay only one fine. See id. at 174, 176; Williams v. 

State, 495 S.W.3d 583, 590–91 (Tex. App.––Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (op. on reh’g), 

pet. dism’d, No. PD-0947-16, 2017 WL 1493488 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 26, 2017) (per 

curiam) (not designated for publication); Wiedenfeld v. State, 450 S.W.3d 905, 906–

07 (Tex. App.––San Antonio 2014, no pet.); Habib v. State, 431 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. 

App.––Amarillo 2014, pet. ref’d).

Because the trial judge ordered appellant’s sentences––including the

$10,000 fines––to run concurrently, we modify the evading-arrest judgment (Count 

Two) to delete the $10,000 fine,3 and we also modify the inmate-funds-withdrawal 

order incorporated into both judgments to delete $10,000 so that the order authorizes

withdrawal of only $10,319. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b). 

Having resolved appellant’s sole remaining complaint, we affirm the

aggravated-assault judgment as is; modify the evading-arrest judgment to delete one of 

the $10,000 fines and affirm that judgment as modified; and modify the inmate-fundswithdrawal order incorporated into both judgments to delete $10,000.

3

See French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (noting that 

appellate court has authority to modify judgment “to make the record speak the 

truth”).
4

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr

Elizabeth Kerr

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: March 11, 2021