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

NO. 03-0 9 -00 211 -CR

Jo se ph D e lm ar c o C ar te r , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 6392 5 , HO NORAB LE JO E CARROLL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Joseph Delmar co C arte r pl eade d g uilty to stealing proper ty worth $1500
or more. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 31.03(a) , (e) (4)( A) (West Supp. 2009 ). The district cour t adjudg ed appe llant guilty

and sentenc ed him to twenty months in state jail. The only issue on appea l is whether the court’s judgme nt a war ds the corr ect amount of jail time cre dit. F inding that no e rror is p re se nte d, we a ff

ir m. At the conc lusion of the sentenc ing he aring , the cour t announce d it s sentenc e as fo llo ws :
All rig ht, Mr. C arte r, I ’ve read y our reports, I ’ve listened to your testimony and I ’m g oing to f

ind y ou g uilty

and asse ss y our punishment at 2 0 months c on fi ne me nt i n s tate ja il. I ’m not sure how much cre dit y ou’re entitled to beca use y ou’ve be en in and o u to f j ai l s o m u ch , b u tt h i s o ff en s e o cc u rr edJ u l y

t h e 7 t h o f ‘ 0 8
. S o , i f y o u ’l l go2

ba c k and fi g ur e up ho w muc h c re dit y ou ’r e e nti tle d to sin c e July the 7th of ‘0 8, I ’l l g ive y ou c re dit fo r a ll o f t

ho se da y s. Appellant’s c ounsel told the court that he w ould do this. T h e co u rt’s written judg ment g ives appellant c redit for

time spent in jail from J anuar y 12 to March 9, 2009. Appellant conte nds that the written judg ment does not confor m to the court ’s ora l pronounce ment reg ardingjail time credit. Se e Tay lor v . S tate , 1 31 S.W. 3d

49 7, 50 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04). App e lla

nt a rgue s th a t th e c ourt ’s c omm e nts ind ic ate that a pp e lla nt h a d mu lti ple incar cer ations, y et the wr itten judgment g ives him credit fo r o n l y one per iod of incar cer ation. Ap pe lla nt a sk s th e Court

to r e mand

the c a us e to the tr ia l c ourt so that the pr op e r a mou nt of ja il t ime
cre dit can be c alculate d.

At the t i m e appellant e ntere d his plea, there was a question reg ardingbail pending sentenc ing. I

n this connection, the prose cutor re marke d without contra diction by defe nse counse l that “ [t]he wa

rr ant on thi s c a se wa s iss ue d, I be lie ve , ba c k in Au g us t, and it too k a re a lly lon g tim e for him to g et ar

rested.” The re cord r efle cts that J anuar y 12, 2009, was the da

y befor e appe llant was taken be fore a mag istrate. Mar ch 9 wa s the sentenc ing date.

The trial court stated t hat appellant had been “in and out of jail,” but the court did not state that all of these periods of inc arc eration were in this case . The court plainly did not know how much jail time cre dit a

ppellant was due, as he asked defe nse counsel to make that d et er m i n at i on. The c ourt stated that appe llant w ould be g iven all the jail time cre dit to which he was e ntitled, and there is nothing in the re cord to indicate that t h i s wa s n o t d o n e. The time credit aw arde d in the3

jud g me nt h a s n ot b e e n s ho wn to b e in corr ect , no r ha s a pp e lla nt s ho wn any re a so n to re mand

thi s
c a us e to t he dis tr ic t c ourt
. The issue is over

ruled, a nd the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Affir med Filed: De cembe r 3, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh