State v. Davis
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1341
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Davis pled guilty to burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated assault and was sentenced to 15 years on September 14, 2009.
- Davis filed a Motion for Reconsideration or Reduction of Sentence; the trial court granted it on October 16, 2009 and reduced the sentence to 12 years.
- Three days later, a second judgment reduced the punishment to 12 years; there is no record of an open-court oral pronouncement in the presence of all parties.
- The State appealed, arguing the second judgment was void for lack of an in-open-court pronouncement with the parties present; the court of appeals agreed with a different rationale.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to resolve whether the trial court had authority to modify the sentence and whether the modified sentence was void for lack of proper pronouncement, ultimately remanding for reassessment of punishment in the presence of the parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a timely motion for reconsideration allows the trial court to modify the sentence. | State argued the trial court had plenary power to modify via timely motion. | Davis contends the modification procedure lacked proper form or procedure. | Trial court had authority to modify the sentence via a timely motion. |
| Whether the modified sentence is void for not being orally pronounced in presence of all parties. | State contends the modification is not void despite the manner of pronouncement. | Davis argues absence of proper oral pronouncement renders the sentence void. | Modified sentence not void, but improper due to lack of in-person pronouncement and presence. |
| What remedy applies when a modified sentence lacks proper oral pronouncement in the presence of the parties. | State sought validation or correction within the existing record. | Davis would benefit from proper proceedings in the presence of the State and defense. | Remand to the trial court for proper reassessment of punishment in the presence of the defendant, attorney, and State. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (oral pronouncement controls when it differs from written judgment; presence matters)
- State v. Aguilera, 165 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (re-sentencing after timely motion must occur in presence of defendant and State)
- Carroll v. State, 975 S.W.2d 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (unitary trial after guilty plea; punishment phase subject to same presence requirements)
- McClinton v. State, 121 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (inherent authority to alter sentences without presence cannot override statutory requirements)
- State v. Savage, 933 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (an order functionally equivalent to a new trial can be treated as such for purposes of relief)