Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Coronado v. State — Court deletes unpronounced $1,000 fine and affirms revocation judgment

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Pedro Coronado Jr. v. The State of Texas
Court
Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals
Judge
Jenny Cron (elected 2024)
Date Decided
August 6, 2026
Docket No.
13-24-00635-CR
Topics
Criminal Sentencing, Deferred Adjudication, Fines, Judgment Modification
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Pedro Coronado Jr. was placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision for ten years for three counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact. The deferred-adjudication order assessed a $1,000 fine on count one.

After the State alleged that Coronado violated the conditions of his community supervision, the trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to twelve years’ confinement. During the oral pronouncement, the court expressly stated that there would be “no fine.” Two subsequently signed versions of the judgment contained inconsistent entries concerning the fine, but both included a marked entry reflecting a $1,000 general fine. Coronado appealed only the inclusion of that fine.

The Court’s Holding

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that the $1,000 fine had to be deleted. Because a fine is punitive and forms part of a criminal sentence, it must be orally pronounced in the defendant’s presence. When an oral sentence conflicts with the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.

The earlier fine imposed as part of the deferred-adjudication order did not survive the later adjudication of guilt because adjudication set aside the deferral order, including its fine. The trial court’s express pronouncement of “no fine” therefore controlled over the fine entries in the written judgments. The appellate court modified the judgment to remove the $1,000 fine and affirmed it as modified.

Key Takeaways

  • A criminal fine is part of the sentence and must be orally pronounced in the defendant’s presence.
  • If a written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence, the oral pronouncement controls.
  • A fine assessed in a deferred-adjudication order does not automatically carry forward after guilt is adjudicated; here, the judgment was modified to reflect the court’s express imposition of no fine.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces that written sentencing documents must accurately reflect what the trial court pronounced in open court. Even when a fine appeared in an earlier deferred-adjudication order, it could not remain in the final judgment after adjudication when the sentencing court expressly imposed no fine.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top