Court Opinion

ID: 9962283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 14:12:16.937352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:15.671084
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                         No. 04-22-00765-CR

                                     John Patrick RODRIGUEZ,
                                              Appellant

                                                   v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                      From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2018CR8896W
                            Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 17, 2024

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

           In this appeal, Appellant John Patrick Rodriguez challenges a fine that was included in the

trial court’s written judgment even though none was orally assessed against him at his sentencing

hearing. The State concedes. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified.

                                             BACKGROUND

           In 2018, Rodriguez pled no contest to tampering with evidence, a third-degree felony,

pursuant to a plea agreement in which the State agreed to recommend deferred adjudication. In
                                                                                      04-22-00765-CR

accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Rodriguez on

four years’ community supervision.

       In 2022, the State moved to revoke Rodriguez’s community supervision after he violated

conditions. Rodriguez pled not true, but upon hearing testimony from Rodriguez’s probation

officer, the trial court adjudicated Rodriguez guilty. In its pronouncement of sentence, the trial

court orally pronounced a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment. The trial court subsequently

signed a written judgment that sentenced Rodriguez to seven years’ imprisonment and a $700 fine.

Rodriguez appeals the imposition of the fine without the oral pronouncement, and the State

concedes.

                                     STANDARD OF REVIEW

       We review a trial court’s sentencing determination for an abuse of discretion. See Jackson

v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Even if the State concedes, “this court

must still independently examine the error confessed because ‘our judgments are precedents, and

the proper administration of the criminal law cannot be left merely to the stipulation of parties.’”

Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (quoting Saldano v. State, 70

S.W.3d 873, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)).

               ORAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE VS. WRITTEN JUDGMENT

A.     Parties’ Arguments

       Rodriguez argues that the unpronounced fine of $700 that was included in the trial court’s

written judgment should be stricken. The State concedes.

B.     Law

       If a sentencing trial court intends to assess a fine, it must do so in its oral pronouncement.

See Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Assessing of a fine in the

trial court’s written judgment without orally pronouncing it constitutes an abuse of discretion and

                                                -2-
                                                                                    04-22-00765-CR

must be modified. Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); accord Ex parte

Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131, 136 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). On appeal from a judgment that contains

an unpronounced fine, the appellate court has the power to reform the written judgment. Asberry

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d)).

C.     Analysis

       As represented by both parties, the trial court included a fine in its written judgment that

was not included in its oral pronouncement at sentencing. Upon our independent review, we

conclude that the fine must be stricken from the judgment. See Taylor, 131 S.W.3d at 502; Ex

parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d at 136. We sustain Rodriguez’s sole issue.

                                          CONCLUSION

       Because the trial court included a fine in its written judgment that was not included in its

oral pronouncement of Rodriguez’s sentence, we modify the judgment to omit the fine. As

modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                    Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                -3-