Staffon Ladarius-Dela Sparks v. State
05-14-00630-CR
| Tex. App. | May 12, 2015Background
- Sparks pled guilty in two cases: aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon (F08-40995) and unlawful possession of a controlled substance (F08-25612); both initially resulted in deferred adjudication with fines/restitution in the robbery case.
- The State filed motions to adjudicate; Sparks agreed to plead true in both cases and to five-year terms under a plea agreement.
- At an April 10 hearing, the judge declined to follow the plea deals and warned Sparks he would receive ten years in each case if he proceeded; Sparks was given time to reconsider.
- On April 14, the court proceeded on cause F08-40995 (aggravated robbery) and orally stated a sentence of ten years—though the judge accidentally referenced possession language during the pronouncement, creating ambiguity.
- On April 17, the court pronounced a five-year sentence in the possession case and stated that the possession sentence would run concurrently with the ten-year sentence in the other case; both written judgments reflect 10 years (robbery) and 5 years (possession).
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 was made for the aggravated-robbery sentence, requiring a new sentencing hearing | State: There was an oral pronouncement of ten years for the aggravated-robbery case; any ambiguity can be resolved by context and the written judgments | Court held an oral pronouncement occurred; ambiguity resolved by context and writings — no new hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (oral sentence controls and must be pronounced in defendant's presence)
- Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (when oral and written judgments conflict, the oral pronouncement controls)
- Aguilar v. State, 202 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006) (when oral pronouncement is ambiguous, read verdict, pronouncement, and judgment together to resolve ambiguity)
- Hill v. State, 213 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (context of court's utterances can resolve ambiguities in oral sentence pronouncements)