Joe Rangel v. The State of Texas Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-23-00107-CR Joe RANGEL, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021CR7315 Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, 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 24, 2024 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED In this appeal, Appellant Joe Rangel 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 June 2021, Rangel pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon pursuant to a plea agreement that included five years of community supervision, a fine of $1,000, and a 04-23-00107-CR recommendation of deferred adjudication by the State. The trial court deferred adjudication and placed Rangel on five years’ community supervision. In January 2023, the State moved to revoke Rangel’s community supervision after he violated conditions. Rangel pled true to one of the violations, and the trial court adjudicated Rangel guilty. In its pronouncement of sentence, the trial court orally pronounced a sentence of four years’ imprisonment. The trial court subsequently signed a written judgment that sentenced Rangel to four years’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Rangel 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 Rangel argues that the unpronounced fine of $1,000 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 must be modified. Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); accord Ex parte -2- 04-23-00107-CR 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 Rangel’s sole issue. CONCLUSION Because the trial court included a fine in its written judgment that was not included in its oral pronouncement of Rangel’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-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
