Waylin Lee Wiedenfeld v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12069
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Waylin Lee Wiedenfeld was convicted by a jury of sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by contact; trial court sentenced him to 11 years and a $1,000 fine on each count, orally stating sentences and fines would run concurrently.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, concluding no arguable grounds for reversal; appellant did not file a pro se brief.
- The written judgment and a nunc pro tunc judgment, however, assessed a total $2,000 in fines (i.e., $1,000 per count, cumulative), contrary to the oral pronouncement that fines run concurrently.
- The trial court prepared a withdrawal notification to TDCJ based on the $2,000 assessment.
- The appellate court reviewed the record, determined no reversible error existed, but found the written judgment conflicted with the oral sentence regarding fines and required modification to reflect a single $1,000 fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there are any arguable grounds for reversal of conviction | No reversible error; convictions and sentences proper | Anders brief concedes no meritorious appeal | No reversible error; appeal without merit |
| Whether written judgment’s $2,000 fine conflicts with oral pronouncement of concurrent fines | Written judgment assesses $2,000; enforcement followed that judgment | Oral pronouncement imposed $1,000 per count to run concurrently | Oral pronouncement controls; modify judgment to reflect $1,000 total fine |
| Whether trial court had authority to order concurrent sentences/fines | Trial court properly ordered concurrent confinement and fines under Penal Code §3.03(b) | — | Concurrent sentences/fines permissible under statute; discretion proper |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders and whether substitute counsel required | Counsel complied with Anders, provided notice to appellant; motion to withdraw appropriate | Appellant received required notices; no brief filed | Anders requirements satisfied; appointed counsel’s withdrawal granted; no substitute counsel appointed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural standard for appointed counsel to withdraw when no nonfrivolous issues exist)
- Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (fines are part of the sentence and must be orally pronounced)
- Crook v. State, 248 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (fine as part of sentence; fines may run concurrently)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Anders-review concluding no reversible error)