Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Randall v. State — affirmed probation revocation but removed $3,000 in restitution

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Calvin Lee Randall v. The State of Texas
Court
Texas Ninth Court of Appeals
Judge
Golemon, C.J. (elected 2020); Johnson, J. (Rick Perry, 2013); Chambers, J. (Greg Abbott, 2024)
Date Decided
August 31, 2026
Docket No.
09-25-00425-CR
Topics
Anders Appeal, Community Supervision, Restitution, Sentencing
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Calvin Lee Randall pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to aggravated assault, a second-degree felony. The trial court deferred adjudication, placed him on community supervision for 10 years, and required him to pay $3,000 in restitution.

After the State alleged that Randall violated multiple conditions of community supervision, the trial court found violations, adjudicated the case, and sentenced him to 15 years in prison. The written judgment also ordered $6,704 in fines, reimbursement fees, and court costs. Randall’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that the appeal was frivolous and moved to withdraw; Randall received additional time to file a pro se brief but did not do so.

The Court’s Holding

After independently examining the entire record and counsel’s Anders brief, the Ninth Court of Appeals found no reversible error and concluded that the appeal was wholly frivolous. It therefore found no need to appoint new counsel to brief additional issues.

The court nevertheless identified a conflict between the sentence pronounced orally and the written judgment. Because the trial court did not orally impose restitution at sentencing, the oral pronouncement controlled. The court deleted the $3,000 restitution amount and reduced the total fines, reimbursement fees, and court costs from $6,704 to $3,704, affirming the judgment as modified.

Key Takeaways

  • An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the entire record for nonfrivolous grounds and reversible error.
  • A written judgment may not impose restitution that was omitted from the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence.
  • The court affirmed Randall’s 15-year prison sentence but reduced the monetary assessment from $6,704 to $3,704.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces that an oral sentencing pronouncement controls over a conflicting written judgment. Even when an appeal is otherwise frivolous under Anders, an appellate court may modify the judgment to remove a monetary obligation that was not orally imposed.

Leave a Comment

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

Scroll to Top