Keys v. State
340 S.W.3d 526
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Keys was convicted in Franklin County of driving while intoxicated (DWI) as a Class A misdemeanor under TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09; punishment verdict imposed a $2,000 fine and 183 days' confinement.
- The trial court entered judgment sentencing Keys to 183 days in the county jail plus the $2,000 fine.
- The court did not orally pronounce the sentence in Keys' presence.
- The State maintains the sentence was effectively pronounced despite the lack of oral pronouncement, citing 1981 amendments.
- The appellate court abates to require an in-person sentencing hearing and supplemental records to cure the error, then will reinstate the appeal to address the remaining issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of oral pronouncement in Keys' presence deprives jurisdiction | Keys: no oral pronouncement in presence; jurisdiction lacking | State: post-1981 amendment renders written affirmation sufficient | Abate; lack of oral pronouncement deprives jurisdiction, remedy needed |
| Whether the 1981 amendment eliminated the need for oral pronouncement | Keys: amendment did not erase oral-pronouncement rule | State: amendment nullifies requirement | Oral pronouncement remains required; amendment not dispositive |
| Proper remedy for failure to orally pronounce sentence | Keys: appeal should be dismissed/reversed | State: comply via alternative written form | Abate to correct via in-person sentencing; do not dismiss; remand for hearing and supplement records |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (oral pronouncement required in presence; governs appealable event)
- Meachum v. State, 273 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (abatable remedy rather than dismissal when error correctable)
- Madding v. State, 70 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (oral pronouncement required; written judgment confirms but does not substitute)
- Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (inadequate record on sentence affects jurisdiction; supports abatement approach)
- Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (when oral pronouncement and written judgment vary, oral pronouncement controls)
- Casias v. State, 503 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (absence of oral pronouncement leaves no valid sentence)