Wally Saldana v. State, 13-16-00152-CR

Wally Saldana was on three years’ deferred adjudication for felony tampering with evidence; probation included a $1,500 fine and $140 restitution initially assessed during probation.
After multiple probation modifications and State motions, the trial court adjudicated Saldana, revoked deferred adjudication, sentenced him to 10 years (probated for 5 years).
At the oral pronouncement of adjudication and sentence, the court did not verbally state a fine or restitution amount on the record, but adopted the probation report and its conditions by reference (State’s Exhibit A).
Post-sentencing documents signed by Saldana and the court amended community-supervision conditions: an initial signed conditions form listed a $1,000 fine; a subsequent signed amendment increased the fine to $1,500 and added court costs.
The trial court issued a judgment nunc pro tunc reflecting $1,500 fine, $140 restitution, and related court costs; Saldana appealed, arguing the nunc pro tunc improperly added/changed amounts not orally pronounced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Saldana)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by including restitution in the judgment nunc pro tunc when not orally pronounced	Restitution was not pronounced at sentencing and thus cannot be added by nunc pro tunc	The court adopted State’s Exhibit A (post‑sentence investigation) at sentencing, which included $140 restitution, so the oral pronouncement incorporated it	Court held restitution was orally pronounced by adoption of the probation report; inclusion in nunc pro tunc was proper
Whether the trial court erred by including/changing a fine amount in the judgment nunc pro tunc when not orally pronounced	The fine amount was not part of the oral sentence and cannot be added via nunc pro tunc	Saldana signed an amended Order Amending Conditions of Community Supervision (and the court signed it) agreeing to a $1,500 fine, so he waived the issue	Court held Saldana agreed to the $1,500 fine by signing the amended conditions; inclusion in nunc pro tunc was proper
Whether court costs were incorrectly calculated because they relied on an improper fine amount	Court costs derived from an incorrect fine make the total costs erroneous	If the fine is proper, the court costs based on that fine are also proper	Court held costs were correctly calculated because the fine was properly included in the nunc pro tunc

Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls; written judgment must reflect the oral sentence)
Collins v. State, 240 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (judgment nunc pro tunc may correct clerical errors but not alter judicial decisions)