Court Opinion

ID: 2922441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:57:01.375743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:51.771520
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-04-025-CR
 
                         COURT
OF APPEALS
 
               THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                  CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________________
 
JONATHAN PAUL DESOTO,                                       Appellant,
 
                                           v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                              Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________
 
                   On
appeal from the 24th District Court
                           of Calhoun County, Texas.
__________________________________________________________________
 
                     MEMORANDUM
OPINION
 
       Before
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez
                      Memorandum
Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
 

On December 4,
2003, appellant, Jonathan Paul DeSoto, was sentenced to forty years
imprisonment for aggravated robbery and ten years imprisonment for aggravated
assault.  The sentences were to run
consecutively.  In his sole point of
error, appellant contends that the trial court=s
pronouncement of the cumulative sentences was not sufficiently specific, and
therefore the sentences should run concurrently.  We affirm.
It is well
settled that where sentences are pronounced on the same day in the same court,
a reference of one to the other by cause number only is sufficient to effect
cumulation of the sentences.  See
Jackson v. State, 449 S.W.2d 242, 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Ex Parte
Lewis, 414 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967); Ex Parte Ogletree,
328 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1959). 
Therefore, the order of cumulation in this case, being made in the same
court, entered on the same day as the sentence to which it is made cumulative,
and referring to the cause number of such sentence, is deemed sufficient.  Jackson, 449 S.W.2d at 244 (citing
Ex parte March, 423 S.W.2d 916, 916 (1968)).  Appellant=s sole
point of error is overruled.
Accordingly the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
 
 
NELDA
V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do
not publish.
Tex.
R. App. P.
47.2(b).
 
Memorandum Opinion
delivered and filed
this 7th day of July,
2005.