Tevin Willis v. State
06-16-00040-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Tevin Willis pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault of a child and elected jury-assessed punishment.
- A jury assessed 13-year sentences and $5,000 fines for each count; written judgments were entered reflecting those sentences.
- The trial court did not orally pronounce guilt or the sentences in open court and in Willis’ presence.
- Willis appealed, arguing the failure to orally pronounce sentence in his presence was fundamental error. The State conceded the sentencing was improper and suggested dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeals noted that oral pronouncement in the defendant’s presence is the appealable event and required by statute and precedent, and that failure to do so deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal unless corrected.
- Relying on its prior decision in Keys and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.4, the court abated the appeal and directed the trial court to conduct a hearing within 30 days to orally pronounce guilt and impose the jury-assessed sentences in Willis’ presence, to file supplemental records, and to credit Willis with time served from March 30, 2016, through the date sentences are actually imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to orally pronounce sentence in defendant’s presence is fundamental error depriving appellate jurisdiction | Willis: trial court’s failure to orally pronounce sentence in open court and in his presence is fundamental error and voids appealable judgment | State: concedes improper sentencing and asks dismissal for want of jurisdiction | Court: Oral pronouncement is required; error affects jurisdiction, but remediable under Rule 44.4, so case abated for correction rather than dismissed |
| Whether appellate court may direct correction instead of dismissing appeal | Willis: seeks relief on appeal after noting defect | State: argues dismissal appropriate | Court: Cites Keys and Rule 44.4 — court must direct trial court to correct remediable error and then proceed as if error had not occurred |
| Whether judgments should be treated as nunc pro tunc or new judgments after correction | Willis: implicit that proper credit and dates matter | State: not contested | Court: Correcting jurisdictional error requires new valid judgments (not nunc pro tunc) reflecting the actual oral pronouncement date |
| Whether defendant must receive credit for time served prior to corrected sentencing | Willis: had been incarcerated since March 30, 2016 | State: not opposed | Court: Directs trial court to credit Willis with all time served from and including March 30, 2016, through the date of actual sentence pronouncement in each judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (oral pronouncement of sentence in defendant’s presence is the appealable event)
- Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (same principle reinforcing requirement of oral pronouncement)
- Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (explaining rationale that oral pronouncement is crucial moment for parties)
- Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (failure to pronounce sentence deprives court of jurisdiction to hear appeal)
- Keys v. State, 340 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (abatement and remand under Rule 44.4 to allow trial court to orally pronounce sentence rather than dismissing appeal)