Gonzalez, Victor Ortiz ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. PD-0256-21
VICTOR ORTIZ GONZALEZ, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS
TARRANT COUNTY
Per curiam.
OPINION
A jury convicted appellant of the following offenses in two cases tried together and
arising out of a single criminal episode: aggravated assault of a public servant and evading
arrest or detention. Appellant was sentenced to forty-five and twenty years, respectively, and
also assessed fines of $10,000 in each case. The trial court ordered the fines to run
concurrently.
On appeal, appellant claimed that he is not responsible for paying both fines and the
court of appeals should delete one of them. The court of appeals agreed and deleted the fine
GONZALEZ – 2
from the judgment in the evading arrest case. Gonzalez v. State, No. 02-18-00179-CR, slip
op. at 1-2 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth March 11, 2021)(not designated for publication).
The State has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision, contending that
concurrent fines are to be treated as a unitary fine, equally discharged when paid, and that
it was error to delete one of them. We recently addressed this issue in Anastassov v. State,
No. PD-0848-20, slip op. (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 5, 2022). There, we observed that “where
multiple fines are assessed in a same-criminal-episode prosecution and they are ordered to
be discharged concurrently, they discharge in the same manner as concurrent terms of
confinement – the defendant pays the greatest amount of fine but receives credit for
satisfying all of the multiple concurrent fines.” Id. at 10. In light of these principles, the Court
held that the court of appeals erred by deleting one of the lawfully assessed fines from the
judgment. Id. at 10-12.
The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in
Anastassov. Accordingly, we grant the State’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the
judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for
reconsideration in light of our opinion in Anastassov.
Delivered November 16, 2022
Do Not Publish