Background
Sariah Garcia appealed four judgments adjudicating her guilt after a combined hearing at which she pleaded true to violating the terms of her deferred-adjudication community supervision. After hearing testimony from Garcia and the State’s witnesses, the trial court adjudicated guilt and pronounced sentences in all four cases, with the sentences to run concurrently.
This appeal concerned Garcia’s state-jail-felony conviction for burglary of a building. The trial court orally sentenced Garcia to six months in state jail, but the written judgment stated that she was sentenced to two years’ confinement. Garcia challenged that discrepancy, and the State conceded the error and agreed that the judgment should be modified.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence controlled over the conflicting written judgment. Because the trial court had orally imposed six months in state jail, the written judgment’s two-year sentence did not accurately reflect the sentence imposed.
The court modified the judgment by replacing “2 YEARS” of confinement with “SIX MONTHS” of confinement in state jail. It then affirmed the judgment as modified.
Key Takeaways
- When an orally pronounced criminal sentence conflicts with the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.
- An appellate court may reform a written judgment to conform to the sentence pronounced in open court.
- The court reduced the written term from two years to six months but otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that the sentence announced in the defendant’s presence is the operative sentence. A materially inconsistent written judgment may be corrected on appeal even when the State concedes the discrepancy.
For criminal practitioners, the case underscores the importance of comparing the sentencing transcript with the final written judgment and promptly seeking reformation when they differ.