NO. 07-09-00211-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL A MAY 26, 2010

CHRISTOPHER NELSON, APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

FROM THE 84TH DISTRICT CO URT OF HUTCHINSON COUNTY; NO. 9894; HONORABLE WILLI AM D. SMITH, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Christopher Nelson appeals from his conviction of two counts of sexual assault of a child and the re sulting sentences of two year s of imprisonment for each count. Through two issues, app ellant contends the trial c ourt erred when it pronounced sentence only on one conviction while c ontemporaneously orderi ng the sentences to run consecutively. We affirm the judgment of t he trial court.
Background
Via a February 2007 indict ment, appellant was charged with two separate counts of sexual assault on a child under the age of 17. A jury convicted appellant as charged2 in the indictment and assessed punishment against him at two years of imprisonment for each count. Beginning its oral pronouncement of the sentences, t he trial court said:

This case was tried heretofore before a jury beginning on the 15 th day of July, 2009. Mr. Nelson, you came before this Court and a jury and entered a plea of not guilty to the offens e of Sexual Assault as set out in Count No. 1 and No. 2 of the indictment. The evidence was submitted and the jury was charged by this Court. And the jury returned a verdict of guilty to the offense of Sexual Ass ault under Count 1 of the indictment, and also a verdict of guilt y to the offense of Sex ual Assault under Count 2 of the indictment. The jury did assess your punishment in regard to Count No. 1 at two years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Divisi on and a $10,000.00 fine. Furthermore, the jury did assess your punishment at a term of confinement of two years in the Texa s Department of Cr iminal Justice, Institutional Division, and a fine of $10,000.00 conc erning punishment in regard to Count No. 2. It’s the judgm ent of this Court you are guilty of both counts, and that your punishment in regard to both counts should be in accordance with the jury’s verdict. *** All right. Then the Court finding not hing in bar why sentence of the law should not be pronounced against y ou, Christopher Nelson, who has been found to have been guilty of the off ense Sexual Assault in Count 1 of the indictment; and also the offense of Sexual Assault under Count 2 in the indictment, the Court at this time does sentence you to serve two years confinement in the Texas De partment of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, a nd a fine of $10,000.00 under the provisions of the law in regard to both cases. The Court will order that the se rvice of these sentences run consecutively. The Court will also give you time credit against the service in each sentence in regard to the time y ou spent in jail prior here to [sic].

The written judgment states appell ant’s punishment to be: “Defendant’s CONFINEMENT in the Instituti onal Division of the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal Justice for a period of TWO (2) YEARS and a FINE in the amount of $10,000.00 is assessed3 against the Defendant in two counts and confinement in both counts shall run consecutive to each other.”
Analysis
Article 42.03, section 1(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that "sentence shall be pronounced in the defendant's presence. " Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03, § 1(a) (Vernon 2009). Article 42.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure grants the trial court aut hority to order sentences to run consecutively or concurrently. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. A nn. art. 42.08 (Vernon 2009). 1 Penal Code § 3.03 provides that when, as here, an accus ed is found guilty of more t han one offense arising out of the same criminal episode pros ecuted in a single criminal action, “a sentence for each offense for which he has been found guilty sha ll be pronounced.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 3.03(a) (Ver non 2009).

At issue here is whether the sent ence pronounced at tr ial was a separate pronouncement of sentence for each offense of which appellant was convicted or whether, as appellant contends , only a single pronouncement.
We consider the entirety of the trial court’s oral pronouncement in determining whether a separate pronouncement fo r each offense was pronounced. See, e.g., Aguilar v. State, 202 S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex.App.—Waco 2006, pet. ref’d) (the jury's punishment verdict, the court's pronouncement , and the written judgment should be read together in an effort to resolve any ambiguity in the sentences). Here, the jury

1 Appellant’s offenses were violations of Penal Code section 22. 011. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2)(A) (Vernon 2009).4 convicted appellant of two c ounts of sexual assault of a child and assessed punishment for each of the two counts plea ded in the indictment. And, while it might be the best practice for a trial court in such situations explicitly to address each count separately every time they are mentioned during its pr onouncement, reading the ent irety of the trial court’s pronouncement here, it is clear to us the trial court addressed each count separately and separately assessed punishment for each count.
We overrule appellant’s first issue. Our conclusion the trial court pronounced sentence separately for each offense ma kes unnecessary our consideration of appellant’s second issue, which he pr esented in the alternative. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

James T. Campbell Justice
Do not publish.