Harold Dean Wilson v. State ( 2012 )

NO. 07-11-00019-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
JANUARY 24, 2012
HAROLD DEAN WILSON, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;
NO. 22,015-B; HONORABLE JOHN B. BOARD, JUDGE
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Harold Dean Wilson filed notice of appeal from his convictions and
sentences for possession of child pornography.1 Through two issues, he contends
there was insufficient evidence to support the $120,000 fine listed in the bill of costs and
seeks reformation of the judgments. In response, the State filed a motion asking that
we sustain appellant’s points of error and reform the district clerk’s bill of costs. We
agree with both parties, will reform the judgments of the trial court and affirm them as
reformed.
1
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.26 (West 2010).
Appellant was charged by indictment with twelve counts of possession of child
pornography. He plead not guilty, but the jury found him guilty and assessed
punishment at ten years of imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for each count. Count XII
was ordered to be served consecutively, and the remaining counts, concurrently. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 43.26; 3.03(a), (b)(3) (West 2010) (discussing cumulation of
sentences).
The court signed a separate judgment for each count. Consistent with the
rendition, the judgments provide the sentences for all but Count XII are to run
concurrently. The judgments also contain a section entitled “Court Costs,” stating, “SEE
BILL OF COSTS.” The Bill of Costs includes a fine of $120,000, cumulating the fines of
$10,000 per count. The Court of Criminal Appeals and Texas appellate courts have
found, however, that when sentences are ordered to run concurrently, the judgment
should not reflect a cumulated fine. State v. Crook, 248 S.W.3d 172, 177
(Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (holding the concurrent sentences provision in the Penal Code
applies to the entire sentence, including fines); Luera v. State, No.14-10-00576-CR,
2011 Tex.App. LEXIS 3367, at *2 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 5, 2011, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (where jury assessed $10,000 fine for each
count and sentences were ordered to run concurrently, judgment should reflect fine of
only $10,000).
An appellate court has the power to correct and reform a trial court judgment to
make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and information to do
so. Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.)
2
(citing Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd)); see
also Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b).
We have reviewed the record and, finding the necessary information to do so, we
reform the judgments of conviction to reflect a fine totaling $20,000, $10,000 for the
eleven concurrent sentences and $10,000 for the one sentence ordered to run
consecutively. As reformed, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
3