Ex parte Hernandez

698 S.W.2d 670, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1708
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 16, 1985
DocketNo. 69381
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 698 S.W.2d 670 (Ex parte Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex parte Hernandez, 698 S.W.2d 670, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1708 (Tex. 1985).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On November 29, 1983, applicant pled guilty to the offense of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance (penalty group I). The trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years confinement and a fine of $620.00. Some two months earlier, on September 14, 1983, this Court had held unconstitutional House Bill 730, which was passed by the Legislature in 1981 and purported to amend the Texas Controlled Substances Act, V.A.C.S., Art. 4476-15. Ex parte Crisp, 661 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Under that holding the Controlled Substances Act stood as though H.B. 730 had never been enacted. 661 S.W.2d at 948. Applicant herein was sentenced according to the provision of H.B. 730, however, which provided for a fine as well as a range of five to 99 years. The original Act had no provision for a fine. Under the original Act, in effect at the time of applicant’s sentencing, the verdict on punishment was unauthorized by law and was [671]*671therefore void at its inception. Moya v. State, 681 S.W.2d 41, 42 (Tex.Cr.App.1984).

This Court is without authority to reform applicant’s sentence. The proper procedure is to remand for new sentencing. Releford v. State, 683 S.W.2d 385 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). Because punishment was assessed by the court, we remand for a new punishment hearing only. Ocker v. State, 477 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).

The relief prayed for is granted. Applicant’s sentence is hereby vacated and applicant is ordered into the custody of the Aransas County Sheriff for a new punishment hearing and sentence. A copy of this opinion shall be forwarded to the Texas Department of Corrections.

It is so ordered.

TOM G. DAVIS, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Timothy O'Reilly v. State
501 S.W.3d 722 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016)
Mary Kuol v. State
482 S.W.3d 623 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015)
Joyce Marie Acey v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
Pomier v. State
326 S.W.3d 373 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Tholonaus Darrell Pomier v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
Gunther v. State
764 S.W.2d 903 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Ex Parte Youngblood
698 S.W.2d 671 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
698 S.W.2d 670, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-hernandez-texcrimapp-1985.