Aldana, Jose L., PD-0725-15

Three judgments convict Aldana on three indecency counts each with a $3,000 fine; sentences run concurrently.
Jury recommended 16-year sentences and $3,000 fines on each count; trial court ordered concurrent sentences.
El Paso Court of Appeals deleted two $3,000 fines and related parole-cost language, reforming the judgments.
State challenged the appellate reform via petition for discretionary review.
Appellant argues concurrent fines must also run concurrently and seeks further reform of costs and parole condition issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should defendant have objected in trial court to concurrent fines being improper and deleted from two judgments?	Aldana argues the three $3,000 fines should all stand.	State contends Aldana should have objected to potential harm; appellate error not preserving issue.	Forfeiture; lack of objection bars relief; no reversible error on this point.
Is reformation to delete fines appropriate where judgments on their face are correct and align with oral pronouncement?	Aldana asserts the appellate court correctly reformed to avoid confusion and costs.	State argues no error to reform since written judgments matched oral sentence.	No sustained error to reform; the appellate reform was improper.
Did the Court of Appeals’ handling amount to a backdoor civil-law matter beyond its jurisdiction?	Aldana claims the court improperly treated civil withdrawal/cost issues.	State argues withdrawal orders are civil and not criminal matters for appeal.	Withdrawal orders are civil; appellate court lacked jurisdiction to resolve them in criminal appeal.

State v. Crook, 248 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (fines in concurrent sentences run concurrently)
Wiedenfeld v. State, 450 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (reformation when a later judgment over- or under-states fines)
Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (withdrawal of costs; costs collection separate from conviction)
In re Johnson v. Tenth Judicial District Court of Appeals, 280 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (inmate trust fund withdrawal orders not criminal appeal issues)
Latson v. State, 440 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (defendant must raise objections in trial court)
Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (reformation requires error; void judgments)
Habib v. State, 431 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014) (dual fines/bills of costs; improper cumulation)
Fullbright v. State, 818 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (void or illegal sentences may be raised anytime)