Court Opinion

ID: 9958862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 08:12:36.297339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:52.600872
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-23-00125-CR

       JAMES DELLWOOD ROGERS, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

         On Appeal from the 102nd District Court
                 Bowie County, Texas
             Trial Court No. 20F0345-102

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
        Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

        James Dellwood Rogers pled guilty to driving while intoxicated, third or more. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.04, 49.09(b) (Supp.). Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement with the

State, the trial court sentenced Rogers to ten years’ imprisonment and imposed a $2,500.00 fine,

but suspended the sentence in favor of placing Rogers on community supervision for ten years.

Alleging that Rogers violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by

consuming alcohol, the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision. After Rogers pled

true to the State’s allegation, the trial court revoked his community supervision and sentenced

Rogers to ten years’ imprisonment.

        In his sole point of error on appeal,1 Rogers argues that the trial court’s oral

pronouncement waiving fines and court costs requires the removal of his fine and imposition of

court costs from the written judgment. We agree.

I.      We Delete the Fine and Court Costs from the Written Judgment

        “[W]hen there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, the

oral pronouncement controls.” Burt v. State, 445 S.W.3d 752, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). In

open court, after reinstating the sentence of ten years’ imprisonment, the trial court said, “I’ll

consider you were on disability, your testimony in that regard and find that you are indigent and

I’m going to waive any court costs, fines, in this matter.” As a result of that pronouncement, the

bill of costs deleted the $2,500.00 fine and did not impose the $520.00 in “reimbursement-based

1
 This case was originally filed as an Anders appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967). On
submission of this appeal, this Court found that an arguable issue existed, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and
abated the cause to the trial court for the appointment of new counsel.
                                                         2
court costs.” Allen v. State, 614 S.W.3d 736, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019). Even so, the trial

court’s written judgment imposed court costs, including $520.00 in reimbursement costs, and a

$2,500.00 fine.

       “This Court has the power to correct and modify the judgment of the trial court for

accuracy when the necessary data and information are part of the record.” Anthony v. State, 531

S.W.3d 739, 743 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v.

State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d)). Here, the State concedes, and we agree, that the fine should be

removed. Based on the oral pronouncement by the trial court, we also find that court costs must

be deleted from the judgment. As a result, we sustain Rogers’s sole point of error.

II.    Disposition

       We modify the trial court’s judgment by deleting the $2,500.00 fine. We further modify

both the judgment and the bill of costs to show that Rogers’s court costs, including the

reimbursement costs, are waived and that his balance is $0.00. As modified, we affirm the trial

court’s judgment.

                                             Jeff Rambin
                                             Justice

Date Submitted:       April 3, 2024
Date Decided:         April 4, 2024

Do Not Publish

                                                3