Staffon Ladarius-Dela Sparks v. State
05-14-00629-CR
| Tex. App. | May 12, 2015Background
- Sparks pled guilty in two cases: aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon (F08-40995-M) and unlawful possession of a controlled substance (F08-25612-M); both were initially placed on deferred adjudication with fines/restitution in the robbery case.
- The State moved to adjudicate; Sparks admitted the allegations and agreed to five years in each case, but the trial judge announced he would not follow the plea bargains and warned he could give ten years in each if Sparks continued.
- The court recessed to allow Sparks to reconsider; Sparks elected to proceed and plead true in both cases.
- At the April 14 hearing (on the aggravated robbery cause number), the judge said he adjudicated community supervision and sentenced the defendant to ten years confinement — but mistakenly referenced the possession case during that oral pronouncement, creating ambiguity.
- At the April 17 hearing (on the possession cause number), the judge expressly pronounced a five-year TDCJ sentence and stated that the other case had a ten-year sentence that would run concurrently.
- The written judgments show 10 years for the aggravated robbery case and 5 years for the possession case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was an oral pronouncement of sentence in the aggravated robbery case | Sparks: no valid oral pronouncement occurred; sentence was not properly pronounced, entitling him to a new sentencing hearing | State: an oral pronouncement occurred; any confusion was inadvertent and can be resolved by reading pronouncement and judgments together | Court: An oral pronouncement occurred; ambiguity resolved by context — 10 years for aggravated robbery, 5 years for possession; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (oral pronouncement controls and sentence must be pronounced in defendant's presence)
- Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (when oral and written judgments vary, oral pronouncement controls)
- Aguilar v. State, 202 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006) (where oral pronouncement is ambiguous, pronouncement, verdict, and written judgment should be read together to resolve ambiguity)
- Hill v. State, 213 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (context of court's utterances may clarify ambiguous oral pronouncement)