State v. Manuel Gonzalez

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-18-00436-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 5, 2020; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas is reviewing the State of Texas's appeal against the trial court's judgment that granted Manuel Gonzalez a new trial and reduced his sentence from two years' imprisonment to forty days in county jail after the revocation of his community supervision for assault family violence. The State contends that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the new trial without valid legal grounds and that Gonzalez's sentence is illegal. 

The background reveals that Gonzalez was indicted on two counts of assault family violence, pleaded guilty, and was originally sentenced to three years of confinement, which was suspended in favor of probation with various conditions, including a forty-day jail term. However, the written judgment incorrectly stated that the forty days was the total sentence instead of a condition of probation. Over the following three years, the State filed multiple motions to revoke his community supervision, leading to a final hearing where Gonzalez admitted to violating his probation. His counsel requested a reduction of the sentence to the minimum for a third-degree felony, resulting in a two-year imprisonment sentence after the revocation.

Subsequently, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc judgment to correct the written record to reflect the original three-year sentence. Gonzalez then filed a motion for a new trial, asserting that the written judgment should prevail over the oral pronouncement. The trial court granted this motion, leading to the current appeal by the State. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The State contends that the trial court improperly granted Gonzalez's motion for a new trial, arguing that the earlier oral sentence of three years should prevail over the written judgment of forty days. The State asserts that the written sentence is illegal as it does not fall within the statutory punishment range for a third-degree felony. The review of the trial court's decision follows an abuse of discretion standard, where evidence is viewed favorably to the trial court, and its credibility determinations are respected. A trial court can grant a new trial "in the interest of justice," but this discretion is limited to legal grounds. Gonzalez's argument for the forty-day sentence, based on the claim that the written judgment supersedes the oral pronouncement, is deemed improper. According to established legal principles, the oral pronouncement of a sentence, made in the defendant's presence, takes precedence over a conflicting written judgment. This rule exists to prevent the unfairness that would arise if a trial judge could later alter a sentence without the presence of the parties involved. In this case, the oral sentence of three years stands as the controlling judgment. However, in the context of probation revocation, the trial court retains the authority to reduce the original sentence under specific conditions, as outlined in Texas law.

The trial court reduced Gonzalez's sentence to two years upon revoking his community supervision, which was permissible as it met the minimum for a third-degree felony under TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 12.34. However, the court was not authorized to impose a sentence below two years, and its rationale for doing so was legally invalid, relying on a mistaken belief regarding the controlling forty-day sentence. This constituted an abuse of discretion. A sentence below the statutory minimum is illegal, void, and without legal effect, and appellate courts lack the authority to reform such sentences. Consequently, the case is remanded to the trial court for proper reassessment of punishment in accordance with TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42A.755(a). The appellate issues raised by the State are sustained, and the order granting a new trial is reversed, with all pending motions dismissed as moot.