### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 268 -CR

P aul it a I bar r a Sa uc e da , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 5902 9 , HO NORAB LE F ANCY H . JEZ EK , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Paulita I

barr a Sauce da plea ded guilty to the ag g ravated sexual assault of
a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a )(1) (B )(iii), (2) (B ) (West Supp. 2007). The trial c ourt adjudg ed her g uilty and assessed a punishment of eig ht year s in pr ison. I n her only point of err or,
a pp e lla nt c omp la ins that the jud g me nt of c on vic tio n inc lud e s a re sti tut ion or de r t hat w a s n ot o ra lly
announce d at the time of sente ncing
. We will modify the j udg ment to delete this order and af firm the judg ment as modified.

Appellant plea ded guilty

on Fe bruar

y 15, 2007. The c ourt ac cepte d her ple a and r eset the ca use for sentenc ing. T he sente ncing hear ing w as held on April 2. The State off ere d no evidenc e
or ar g ument, but it did refer the cour t to a prese ntence repor

t. Appellant’s counsel, citing appellant’ s ag e, fa mily status, and employ

m en t , u rg ed the c ourt to defe r adjudication and place her on community

su p er vision. The court ther eupon adjudg ed appe llant guilty and stated that “it’s the2

judgme nt and sentenc e of this cour t that y ou serve eig ht y ear s” in prison. Wit h that, appellant wa s
r e m an d e d t o c u s t o dy. The trial c ourt did not order a ppellan t t o p ay

restitution when it announce d her punishment and imposed sentenc e. In the written judg ment of convic tion signed two day s later, ho we ve r, the c ourt

or de re d a pp e lla nt t o p ay , a ft e r s he is r e le a se d f ro m pr iso n, $4 63 in r e sti tut ion to the “Of fice of Attorney

Gene ral, Crime Victim’s Compensation, L aw Enf orce ment Reimbursement for Sexual Assault Ex ams” at a m ailing addre ss in Austin. Appellant urge s that the written judg ment must be modified to conform to the se ntence pronounce d in open cour t, which did not contain the restitution order.

A trial cour

t’s pronounce ment of sentenc e is oral, while the judgme nt, including the
se ntence a sse sse d, is m e re ly the wr itt e n d e c lara

tio n a nd e mbo dim e nt o f t

hat or a l pr on ounc e me nt. Ba nk s v . S tate , 708 S.W .2d 460, 461-62 (Te x . Crim. App. 1986). When the oral pronounc ement of sentenc e and the written judg ment vary , the oral p ro n o unceme nt controls. Cof fe yv . S tate , 979 S.W .2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). The rationale for this rule is that the impositi on of sent e n c e is th e c r

u c ia l m o me n t w h e na ll th e p arti e s ar e p h y s ic a ll y p r e s e n t a

n d a b le to h e ar

and respond to the se ntence . E x p a r teMadding , 7 0 S
. W
. 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 6 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 )
. In addition, the defe ndant beg ins serving the sentenc e imposed when she leaves the c ourtroom. Id
. It violates due proc ess to orally pronounce a sente nce a

nd then later , without notice or hear ing, e nter
a wr itten judgment imposing a har sher se ntence . Id . at 136-37.

I s a re stitut ion order pa

rt of the se ntence and thus subject to the rule discussed in the pr e c e din g pa

ra g ra ph ? We h old

that it is.3 The c o d e of cr iminal procedur e author izes the sentencingcourt to orde r the de fenda nt to make re stitut ion, but “imposit ion of the orde r may not und u l y

complicate or

prolong the sentenc ing pr ocess.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.037(e) (West Supp. 2007). The c ourt of criminal appe als has stated that article 42.037( e) “ implies that re stitut ion is im posed as pa rt of the orig inal sentenc e, and that the sentenc e is not complete until restitution is i mposed.” Ba ile yv . S tate , 160 S.W .3d 11, 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

The issue in B a ile

y was whe ther the notice of appe al had be en timely filed. Afte r Ba iley pleade d g uilty , the trial court ad j u dg ed him g uilty , assessed punishment, suspende d imposit ion of sentence, and order ed him place d on probation. Id . at 12 . T he c ourt the n r e se t th e c a se to de termine the amount of re stitut ion. Id
. One month later, following a hear ing, the court orde red Ba iley to pay a specified amount of r estitution as a condition of probation. Id . Ba iley filed his notice of appe al three wee ks later, more than thirty day s afte r the trial court had suspended imposition of sentenc e and pla ced him on probatio n but less than thirty day s after

the re stitut ion order. Id .; see Te x. R. A pp . P. 26 .2 (a )( 1) . T he c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls h e ld t

hat the no tic e of a

pp e a l wa s ti me ly b ec au s e s entenc ing ha d not been c omplete until the amount of restitution had bee n set. Bailey , 16 0 S. W.3 d at 16 ; se e als o id
. at 18 (re stitut ion is “an order that is pronounced or ally in open cour

t as a pa rt of the se ntencingproce ss”) (Coc hran, J., concurr ing)
. We find further

support for our

conclusion that a res t i t u t ion order is pa rt of the senten ce i n t h e court of cr iminal appeals’s r ece nt statement that “re stitut ion is punishm ent.” Ex parte Cavazos , 203 S.W .3d 333, 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Be cause the sentenc e is that part of the judg ment that order s that the punishment be ca rried into execution, i t follows that restitution, as punishment, is part of the se ntence . See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 42.02 (West 2006).4 The State points out that in Bailey , the amount of re stitut ion had not been de termined when the trial court announce d its intention to pla ce the defe ndant on probation, and the par ties had ag ree d to r eset the case for a restitution de termination at a late r date
. See B ailey , 160 S.W .3d at 12, 16. I n the ca se now be fore us, the amount and ba sis for the re stitut ion o rd er was containe d in the prese ntence repor

t offer ed at the se ntencinghear ing. T he St at e al s o points out t hat appe llant’s counsel told the cour

t during the sentenc ing hear ing that “[appellant] wishes to make any restitution for a ny harm re g ardingmedical or injuries or damag e to this juvenile or thi s y oung man incurr ed.” These f acts , h o w e v e r , ar g u e in f a v o r o f o u r h o ld in g th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt w a s r e qu ir e d to order restitution at the time sentence was imposed. All of the ne cessa ry information was be fore the cour t when it imposed sentenc e; there was no ne ed to delay the re stitut ion order nor

any ag ree ment among the par ties to do so. We hold that having f

ailed to orde r re stitut ion when it imposed sentence , th e trial court wa s not authorized to a dd a restitution or der to its written judgme nt. Accor dingly , we modify the judg ment of convic tion to delete the re stitut ion order. A s modified, the judg ment is affirme d.

________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Waldrop a nd Henson Modified and, a s Modified, Aff irmed Filed: De cembe r 12, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh