## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

_______________________ ____ No. 02

- 18

- 00179

- C R

________________ _______ ____

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1497894D
Before Kerr, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### V ICTOR 

### O RTIZ 

### G ONZALEZ 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND After reversing our jud gment in this case and ho lding that appellant Vic tor Or tiz Gonzalez did not suffer egregious harm from the trial court ’ s charg e error , t he Court of Cri minal Appeals remanded th e appeal to us to address “ the remaining issues in a mann er consistent with ” its opi nion

. 1 Gonzalez v. Sta te , 610 S.W .3d 22, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). Appel la nt ’ s only remaining complaint is that we should ref orm the inmate

funds

- withdrawal order , which authorizes withdrawal of $20,319

–– t he two $10,000 fines as s essed by t he jury and $ 319 in court costs

–– to de lete one of the two f ine s . See State v. Crook , 248 S.W.3d 172, 177 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holding t hat when trial court orders concurrent sentences , any assessed fines also run

co ncurrently )

. The State conced es that appellant is corr ect , and we agree . The trial cou rt signed two judgments : one for aggravated assault of a public

serv ant and one for eva din g arrest or det ention with a vehicle. Although each judgment impose s a $ 10,000 fine, 2 both judgm en t s al s o s t ate

–– in accordance with the trial jud ge ’ s oral p ronouncement

–– that t he se ntences r u n concurrently. Because a fine is part of a sentence, fines runni ng concurrently may not be added to each other ;

1 On remand , t he court as sign ed Justices Bassel and Womack to the panel in place of Justices Lee Gab riel and Mark Pittma n, who no longer serve on this court

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

.
2 Only the aggrava te d

- assa ult judgment imposes court costs
. See Te x. Code Crim. P r oc. Ann. art. 102.073(a).3 instead, the de fendant is obligate d to pay only one fine

. See id. at 17 4, 176 ; Williams v. State , 495 S.W.3d 583, 590

– 91 (Tex. App.

–– Houston [1 st D ist.] 2016 ) (op. on reh ’ g) , p et. dism ’ d

, No. PD

- 0947

- 16 , 2017 WL 1493488 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 26 , 2017) ( p e r curiam) (not designated for publication ) ; Wi edenfeld v. State , 450 S

. W .3d 90 5, 906

– 07 ( Tex. App.

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

–– A marillo 2014, pet. ref ’ d

)

. Becau se the trial judge ordered appellan t ’ s sentenc e s
–– including the $10,000 fines

–– to run concurrently, we modify t he eva di ng
- arrest judgment (Count Two) to delet e the $10,000 fine, 3 and we also modi fy the inmate

- funds

- withdrawal order incorpor ated into both j udgment s to delete $10,000 so t hat the order a u thori z e s withdrawal of only $10,319. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b). Having r esolved a ppellant ’ s sole remaining co mpl aint, we affirm the
aggrav ated

- assault judgment as is ; modify the evading

- arrest j u dgment to d e lete one of

t he $1 0,000 fine s and a ffirm th at judgment as modified ; and modify the inmate

- f unds

withdrawal order incorporated into both judgment s to delete $10,0 00

.

3 See French v. State , 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992 ) ( noting that app ellate court has authority to modify judgment “ to make the record speak the truth ” ).4 / s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice Do N ot Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Del ivered : March 11, 2021