Sullivan v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Strickland v. State

    No. PD-0616-23 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 23, 2024)

    In fact, in dicta in Beedy, the Court wrote, "In upholding the court of appeals's decision to delete the cumulation order in this case, we do not mean to suggest that we would reach the same conclusion in a case where the trial judge had the authority to cumulate but entered, at his discretion under Article 42.08(a), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a cumulation order that lacked the requisite specificity." Beedy, 250 S.W.3d at 114. Similarly, in Morris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 281, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) and Sullivan v. State, 387 S.W.3d 649, 652 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), this Court acknowledged the dicta from Beedy that if a cumulation order is not sufficiently specific, a remand may be permitted. Therefore, whether deletion of the order or a remand to the trial court for specificity seems to depend on whether the trial judge acted lawfully.

  2. Hoyt v. State

    No. 11-22-00308-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 21, 2024)

    "[A] trial judge may not cumulate sentences in the written judgment if he did not do so in his oral pronouncement." Sullivan v. State, 387 S.W.3d 649, 652 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131, 136 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (The trial court must make a cumulation order "at the time and place that [the] sentence is orally pronounced" if it wishes to "stack" a defendant's sentence.);

  3. Fuentes-Sanchez v. State

    NO. 03-12-00281-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 17, 2014)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that charge permitted jury to convict defendant "either acting alone or as a party to the aggravated-sexual-assault offenses under at least one theory that was overwhelmingly supported by the evidence"

    When offenses arising out of the "same criminal episode" are tried in the same criminal action, the sentences must be concurrent unless a specific statutory exception within chapter three of the Texas Penal Code provides otherwise. Tex. Penal Code § 3.02(a); Sullivan v. State, 387 S.W.3d 649, 651 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). One such exception provides that consecutive sentences may be imposed for convictions for certain types of sexual offenses if the offenses were committed against a victim younger than 17 years of age. Tex. Penal Code § 3.03(b)(2)(A).

  4. Byrd v. State

    499 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)   Cited 44 times

    As modified, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.Sullivan v. State , 387 S.W.3d 649, 653 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (citing Morris v. State , 301 S.W.3d 281, 294 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (“When part of a cumulation order is illegal, the remedy is to delete the illegal portion.”). With no sentence in operation upon which the trial court could stack these sentences, they would begin on the day of the judgments and run concurrently with each other.

  5. Crowder v. State

    No. 11-22-00081-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 27, 2023)

    Because an unlawful cumulation order signed by the trial court does not constitute reversible error, the appropriate remedy is to reform the trial court's judgment and delete the unlawful order. See Sullivan v. State, 387 S.W.3d 649, 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Morris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 281, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)); Beedy v. State, 250 S.W.3d 107, 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

  6. Isadore v. State

    No. 02-21-00198-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 8, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    The trial court's oral pronouncement of a cumulation order controls over a written cumulation order. Sullivan v. State, 387 S.W.3d 649, 652 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

  7. Krenzer v. State

    No. 05-21-00459-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 6, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Id. If a cumulation order is not sufficiently specific, a remand may be permitted to allow the trial court to remedy the order, but we need not consider whether a remand is appropriate in this case. See Sullivan v. State, 387 S.W.3d 649, 652 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

  8. Green v. State

    No. 11-16-00107-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 15, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Consequently, the trial court, under Section 3.03, could only order that the sentences be served concurrently. Sullivan v. State, 387 S.W.3d 649, 651 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see PENAL § 3.03(a). Where there is an unlawful cumulation or stacking order, the appropriate remedy is the order's deletion.

  9. Mason v. State

    NO. 03-14-00562-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    If a written cumulation order differs from the orally pronounced order and the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence conforms with the law and makes clear the court's intent, we can reform the cumulation order on appeal. See Sullivan v. State, 387 S.W.3d 649, 652 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Appellant was tried on five charges, acquitted on Counts I-III, and convicted on Counts IV and V. There is a separate written judgment for each count even though they were tried under the same cause number.

  10. Castilleja v. State

    NO. 03-12-00839-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 23, 2014)

    When multiple offenses arising out of the "same criminal episode" are tried in the same criminal action, the sentences must be concurrent unless a specific statutory exception within chapter three of the Texas Penal Code provides otherwise.See Tex. Penal Code § 3.03(a); Sullivan v. State, 387 S.W.3d 649, 651 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). One such exception provides that consecutive sentences may be imposed for convictions for certain types of sexual offenses if the offenses were committed against a child victim.