Curtis Dean Johnson v. State ( 2020 )

AFFIRMED as MODIFID and Opinion Filed January 28, 2020
S
Court of Appeals
In The
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00155-CR
CURTIS DEAN JOHNSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 069028
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Osborne, Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III
Opinion by Justice Osborne
Appellant Curtis Dean Johnson was convicted on an “open” plea of guilty of possession of
methamphetamine in an amount greater than one gram but less than four grams. Appellant entered
pleas of true to two enhancement paragraphs. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court
sentenced appellant to fifty years’ imprisonment.
In a single issue on appeal, appellant claims that the trial court’s judgment improperly
includes restitution because a restitution order was not part of the oral pronouncement of sentence.
In a letter filed with this Court, the State concurs with appellant’s allegation.1
1
The State declined to file a brief in this case.
The written judgment entered by the trial court requires appellant to pay restitution in the
amount of $180.00. The trial court, however, in pronouncing sentence orally, made no mention of
restitution.
A defendant’s sentence must be pronounced orally in his presence. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 42.03, § 1(a). The judgment, including the sentence assessed, is just the written
declaration and embodiment of that oral pronouncement. Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500
(Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.01. A trial judge has neither
the statutory authority nor the discretion to orally pronounce one sentence in front of the defendant
but then enter a different written judgment outside the defendant’s presence. Burt v. State, 445
S.W.3d 752, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). When there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement
of sentence and the sentence in the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Taylor,
131 S.W.3d at 500.
Restitution is considered punishment. Ex parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333, 338 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006); see also Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 366 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Any restitution
amount must be orally pronounced. See Taylor, 131 S.W.3d at 502; Alexander v. State, 301 S.W.3d
361, 363 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2009, no pet.).
We have the authority to modify an incorrect judgment when the evidence necessary to
correct that judgment appears in the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d
26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas
1991, pet. ref’d).
Because the $180.00 restitution amount included in the judgment did not comport with the
trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentencing, it was error to include the restitution amount in the
judgment.
–2–
We modify the trial court’s written judgment to delete the restitution amount and affirm
the judgment as modified.
/Leslie Osborne/
LESLIE OSBORNE
JUSTICE
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
190155F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CURTIS DEAN JOHNSON, Appellant On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District
Court, Grayson County, Texas
No. 05-19-00155-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 069028.
Opinion delivered by Justice Osborne.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Partida-Kipness and Pedersen, III
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows:
The amount of restitution is deleted.
as REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered January 28, 2020.
–4–