Ette, Eddie Offiong, 559 S.W.3d 511

Eddie Offiong Ette was convicted by a jury of first-degree misapplication of fiduciary property; he elected jury-assessed punishment.
The jury verdict form assessed punishment at 10 years confinement and a $10,000 fine; the verdict form was read aloud in Ette’s presence and signed by the jury foreman.
The trial judge orally pronounced sentence immediately after reading the verdict: suspended the 10-year sentence and placed Ette on community supervision, but did not orally mention the $10,000 fine.
The written judgment and the community-supervision paperwork included the $10,000 fine; Ette signed the supervision form the same day and the judgment was entered the next day.
On appeal the court of appeals (split) upheld the fine, resolving the discrepancy in favor of the jury verdict; dissent argued the oral pronouncement controls and the fine should be deleted.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding a jury’s lawful punishment verdict properly read in the defendant’s presence controls over a trial judge’s failure to orally restate a jury-assessed fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a fine assessed by a jury but omitted from the judge’s oral pronouncement may be imposed when included in the written judgment	Ette: Oral pronouncement governs; fines must be pronounced in defendant’s presence and oral sentence controls the written judgment	State: Jury verdicts are binding; when a jury assesses punishment and its verdict was read in defendant’s presence, the written judgment must reflect that verdict and the fine stands	A jury’s lawful punishment verdict that was read aloud in the defendant’s presence controls; the fine may be imposed despite the judge’s failure to orally restate it
Whether the general rule that oral pronouncement controls written judgment applies when the jury, not the judge, assessed punishment	Ette: General rule should apply regardless; defendant must hear full sentence	State: Rule crafted for non-jury sentencing; does not override an unambiguous, lawful jury verdict	Court: The oral-pronouncement-precedence rule does not supplant a lawful jury verdict correctly read in open court

Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (oral pronouncement ordinarily controls written judgment; due-process rationale)
Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (oral pronouncement controls when it conflicts with written judgment)
State v. Ross, 953 S.W.2d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (sentence is the portion of the judgment setting out punishment)
Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (fines are punitive and generally must be orally pronounced)
Ex parte McIver, 586 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (trial court generally may not alter a lawful jury verdict)
Aguilera v. State, 165 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (trial court must enter lawful jury verdict as judgment)