Ronald David Piazza was indicted in 2019 for felony possession of methamphetamine and subsequently pleaded guilty, waiving his right to a jury trial. The trial court sentenced him to ten years in prison but suspended the sentence, placing him on five years of community supervision with specific conditions, including the payment of fines and restitution. In 2021, the State moved to revoke his community supervision, citing multiple violations, including the use of drugs and non-compliance with program requirements. During a 2022 hearing, Piazza admitted to most violations, leading the court to revoke his community supervision and impose the original ten-year sentence. His appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, concluding the appeal lacked merit, and Piazza did not submit a pro se brief. The appellate court conducted a thorough review and found no reversible errors, affirming the revocation. However, it modified the judgment to remove a restitution order of $100 that was not orally pronounced during sentencing. The court confirmed the trial court's findings regarding violations and reiterated the obligation to pay outstanding fines, fees, and restitution.
Due Process mandates that a defendant must receive fair notice of their sentence's terms, which must be pronounced orally in their presence, as established by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03. The written judgment merely reflects this oral pronouncement, and in cases of discrepancies, the oral pronouncement takes precedence. Restitution is considered a form of punishment and must be included in the oral pronouncement to be validly included in the written judgment. If restitution is not orally pronounced but later appears in writing, it may be subject to removal from the judgment.
In the context of community supervision revocation, appellate review is generally limited to the propriety of the revocation itself, and issues related to the original conviction typically cannot be raised. An appeal must be initiated when the sentence is imposed in court. Thus, any errors, including those concerning restitution in the original judgment, should have been appealed at that time. The Judgment Revoking Community Supervision must be modified to correct the continued error from the prior judgment regarding restitution, as the written judgment does not align with the required oral pronouncement.
Restitution orders must be included in the oral pronouncement of a sentence to be validly incorporated into the written judgment. In Alexander v. State, the court affirmed the deletion of a restitution order from the judgment because it was not included in the oral sentencing. This principle was reiterated in Jones v. State and Toler v. State, where the oral pronouncement took precedence over the written judgment when restitution was omitted. In Piazza's case, he admitted to multiple violations of community supervision, and only one violation is needed to support revocation, negating the need for remand. The trial court's judgment was affirmed as modified. Piazza has the option to file a petition for discretionary review.
