Opinion
NO. 02-17-00341-CR
07-05-2018
MICHAEL LOPEZ APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1490785D MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant Michael Lopez was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and at the conclusion of his trial, the trial court found him guilty of the second count but not guilty of the first count and assessed Lopez's punishment for the single conviction at ten years' confinement. The written judgments nonetheless reflect that Lopez was found guilty of both counts and sentenced to ten years' confinement for each count, to be served concurrently.
In a single issue, Lopez complains that the trial court's written judgment on count one conflicts with the trial court's oral pronouncement of acquittal on that count. He asks that we reform the judgment on that count to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement of acquittal and that we remove the language from both judgments requiring that his sentences run concurrently because there should be only one sentence, for the count for which he was found guilty. The State agrees that there is such a conflict and that we should accordingly reform the judgments.
When there is a conflict between the trial court's oral pronouncement and its written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls, and the solution is to reform the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement. Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Accordingly, we sustain Lopez's sole issue and modify the trial court's judgments to reflect that he was acquitted on count one and that there is only one ten-year sentence for his conviction on count two. We affirm the trial court's judgments as modified. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b).
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
BONNIE SUDDERTH
CHIEF JUSTICE PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; PITTMAN and BIRDWELL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: July 5, 2018