# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 19

- 00158

- CR
Shanetha C. TATE , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016CR10122 Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 25, 2019
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED Appellant Shanetha C. Tate was indicted for the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon
. Under a plea agreement, Tate pled nolo contendere to the offense . T he trial court deferred adjudication and placed Tate on three

- ye ars ’ community supervision , but it did not orally pronounce a fine

. However, t he written judgment impos ed a $1, 15 0 .00 fine , and Tate appeals only
the fine

. The State concedes error and prays that the judgment be modified to remove the fine but affirmed in all other respects. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.04

- 19

- 00158

- CR

- 2

- F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND On October 15, 2018, t he State filed an amended motion to adjudicat e guilt and revoke community supervision alleging Tate violated multiple conditions of her community supervision. At the hearing on the State ’ s amended motion, Tate entered a ple a of true to violating Condition
No. 1 of the terms of her probation

— specifically, committ ing the offense of theft on January 18,
2018

. The trial court found the violation true, adjudicated Tate guilty, and orally pronounced her

sentence as ten

- years ’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Cri minal Justice

. The trial court did not orally pronounce a fine. Later, t he trial court signed a written judgment that adjudicated Tate’s guilt and sentenced
her to ten

- years ’ imprisonment and impos ed a $1, 15 0

. 00 fine. Tate timely perfected this appeal.
E FFECT OF A N O RDER A DJUDICATING G UILT Citing Taylor v. State , 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) , Tate contend s the trial
court erred when it imposed a fine in its written judgment when it had not imposed a fine in its oral pronouncement of sentence. The State agrees and concedes error.
In Taylor , when the trial court originally deferred the defendant’s guilt and placed the defendant on deferred adjudication, the trial court orally pronounced a fine at the time of the
deferral. Id . at 498. The original order deferring the defendant’s adjudication of guilt also included
a fine. Id

. at 499. After the State’s third motion to adjudicate, the trial court adjudicated the defendant’s guilt ; the trial court assessed four

- years’ confinement but did not orally pronounce a fine

. Id . However, the written judgment adjudicating the defendant’s guilt included a fine

. Id. Taylor explained that the imposition of a fine “would be permissible in a case involvi ng regular probation,” but the court concluded “the fine must be deleted in this case because of the unique circumstances of deferred adjudication.” Id

. at 498.04

- 19

- 00158

- CR

- 3

- [W]hen an accused receives deferred adjudication, no sentence is imposed. Then, when guilt is adjudicated, the order adjudicating guilt sets aside the order deferring adjudication, including the previously imposed fine

. This is in stark contrast to regular probation, where the sentence is imposed but suspended when probation is granted.
Id. at 502. Applying the law to the facts , Taylor further reasoned as follows : [T]he order granting Taylor deferred adjudication was set aside. Taylor was not sentenced until his guilt was adjudicated. At that time, the judge did not orally pronounce a fine , but included a fine within the written judgment. When there is a conflict between the two, the oral pronouncement controls. Since the judge did not orally assess a fine as part of Taylor ’ s sentence when guilt was adjudicated, the Court of Appeals w as correct to delete the fine from the judgment.
Id. Here, as in Taylor , the trial court did not orally pronounce a fine after revoking Tate’s deferred adjudication community supervision and adjudicating her guilt . The orally pronounced

sentence

— without the fine

— controls over the written order

— which imposed a fine. See id

. ; Lewis
v. State , 423 S.W.3d 451, 458 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2013, pet. r ef’d) (“ Fines are part of a sentence and therefore must be orally pronounced in open court in order to be valid. ”). Because the trial court’s written judgment erroneous ly imposes a $1,150.00 fine, we sustain Tate’s issue.
See Taylor , 131 S.W.3d at 502

. 1 Accordingly, we modify the trial court ’ s judgment to delete the imposition of the $1, 15 0

. 00 fine and affirm the judgment as modified. Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
D O NOT PUBLISH

1 See also Arambula v. State , No. 04

- 18

- 00395

- CR, 2018 WL 5928457, at *1 (Tex. App.

–– San Antonio Nov. 14, 2018, no pet.) ( mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Taylor as precedent for modifying the trial court ’s judgment to delete a fine ) ; Kaska v. State , No. 04

- 15

- 00742

- CR, 2016 WL 4444417, at *3 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Aug. 24, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ( same ).