Opinion
No. 05-04-00984-CR
Opinion issued June 6, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F98-22994-VK. Affirmed.
Before Justices WRIGHT, BRIDGES, and FITZGERALD.
OPINION
Daniel Whiddon Magner waived a jury trial, entered a negotiated guilty plea to possession of cocaine in an amount less than one gram, and pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs. See Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (b) (Vernon 2003). Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years' confinement, probated for five years, and a $300 fine. The State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging several violations. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations at a hearing on the motion. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten years' confinement and a $300 fine. In three points of error, appellant contends his due process and due course of law rights were violated, and the trial court erred in including a fine in the judgment revoking community supervision that was not orally pronounced at the sentence. Appellant argues there was no allegation or proof that the previously-ordered fine had not been paid, and appellant was not given notice or opportunty to be heard on the payment of the fine at the revocation hearing. Appellant argues that because the trial judge neither orally pronounced the fine nor included it on the court's docket sheet, the fine should be deleted from the judgment. We disagree. An unprobated fine orally imposed at the original plea hearing may be included in the judgment revoking regular probation even though the fine was not repronounced at the revocation hearing. See Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 329 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). Appellant argues that Coffey does not apply because the State neither alleged nor proved that appellant had not paid his fine. We disagree with appellant's restrictive interpretation of Coffey's holding. Here, the trial court's judgment placing appellant on probation specifically stated that the $300 fine was not probated. Appellant therefore had notice of the fine. Thus, the fine was properly included in the judgment revoking probation. See id. We overrule appellant's points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.