Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Brandon Symons pleaded guilty in July 2024 to possession of a controlled substance. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on community supervision for three years.
After the State petitioned to proceed to adjudication, Symons pleaded true to the allegations in the State’s second amended petition. The trial court adjudicated him guilty and orally sentenced him to 20 months in a state jail facility. Although the oral sentence did not mention his driver’s license, the written judgment ordered a six-month suspension.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals modified the judgment to delete the driver’s-license suspension and affirmed the judgment as modified. When a written judgment conflicts with the sentence pronounced in the defendant’s presence, the oral pronouncement controls, and the proper remedy is to conform the written judgment to that pronouncement.
The court also held that the suspension did not belong in the criminal judgment because Texas law makes the license suspension automatic upon final conviction of a felony drug offense. Applying binding Second Court of Appeals precedent in this transferred case, the court explained that the suspension is a civil penalty and is not authorized as part of a criminal judgment. Because this ruling gave Symons all the relief he requested, the court did not address his alternative argument that any suspension should last 90 days rather than six months.
Key Takeaways
- An oral sentence controls over conflicting terms later included in the written criminal judgment.
- A driver’s-license suspension arising from a final felony drug conviction is automatic and self-operative under the Texas Transportation Code.
- Because that suspension is a civil penalty, it should not be ordered in the criminal judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the limits on what trial courts may add to written criminal judgments after sentencing. Even when another statute independently imposes a consequence of conviction, that consequence cannot necessarily be inserted into the criminal judgment.
For practitioners, the opinion highlights the importance of comparing the oral pronouncement with the written judgment and seeking reformation when the written document adds unauthorized punishment or collateral consequences.