Sullivan, James Allen, 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1887

Appellant convicted of four sexual assaults against three victims; each count carried an 18-year term.
Victims: A.S. (17 at the time), N.P. and C.C. (under 17).
Trial judge ordered NP counts to run concurrent with each other; A.S. and C.C. to run consecutively; NP to run consecutively to the others.
Oral pronouncement: three consecutive 18-year terms; written judgments had conflicting cumulation orders.
Appeals court modified to delete A.S. stacking; kept NP/CC stacking; resulting in two consecutive terms instead of three.
Texas Penal Code ch. 3 governs stacking; issue presented: proper remedy when one sentence is improperly stacked.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is A.S. stacking improper under ch. 3?	State conceded error; A.S. not under 17; no stacking.	Appellant contends remedy may vary; sequencing must follow oral pronouncement.	A.S. stacking is improper; delete A.S. and allow NP/CC stacking.
Did court of appeals correctly modify judgments or require remand?	State supports modification to delete illegal cumulation.	Appellant argues remand or different sequencing is required.	Court of appeals properly deleted illegal cumulation; sequencing aligned with law and record.
Should written judgments be aligned with the trial judge’s oral pronouncement without remand?	Oral pronouncement controls; written order must match.	Discrepancies between oral and written orders may require remand.	Oral pronouncement controls; reform aligns judgments without remand.

Morris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 281 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (partially illegal cumulation; proper remedy discussed)
Rhodes v. State, 240 S.W.3d 882 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (appellate reform of judgments to delete illegal cumulation)
Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (statutory interpretation of stacking provisions)
Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (plain meaning of statutory text; avoid absurd results)