Ex Parte Youngblood

698 S.W.2d 671, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1709
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 16, 1985
Docket69471
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 698 S.W.2d 671 (Ex Parte Youngblood) 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 Youngblood, 698 S.W.2d 671, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1709 (Tex. 1985).

Opinions

OPINION

MILLER, Judge.

This is a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to Art. 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was indicted for the offense of aggravated sexual abuse, with a prior felony conviction alleged for enhancement. The jury found applicant guilty of aggravated sexual abuse and he pled “True” to the enhancement paragraph. Punishment was assessed by the jury at confinement for life in the Texas Department of Corrections and a $10,000 fine.

[672]*672In his application for writ of habeas corpus, applicant contends that the jury’s assessment of a $10,000 fine is unauthorized by Y.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 12.42(c) and requests that the judgment and sentence be set aside and a new trial ordered, citing Bogany v. State, 661 S.W.2d 957 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

Section 12.42(c), supra, provides:

“If it be shown on the trial of a first-degree felony that the defendant has been once before convicted of any felony, on conviction he shall be punished by confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for life, or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 15 years.”

No provision is made for assessment of a fine in addition to a term of imprisonment. Thus, the fine imposed in the case at bar was unauthorized by law.

Applicant relies on Bogany v. State, 661 S.W.2d 957 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) wherein we held that a judgment containing a punishment unauthorized by law was void since the court was without authority to correct the infirmity. On June 11, 1985, however, Senate Bill 1349, Acts 69th Leg., became effective. In Ex parte Johnson, 697 S.W.2d 605 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), we interpreted this amendment to provide a vehicle by which an improper verdict could be reformed, thus correcting the infirmity present in Bogany, supra. We also held that the amendment applies to pending and future actions. Ex parte Johnson, at 607-608.

In applying Ex parte Johnson, supra, to the case at bar, the assessment of $10,000.00 fine was unauthorized. Thus, we need not remand the case for a new trial; rather, we may reform the verdict and judgment and delete the improper fine.

Applicant’s request for relief is therefore denied. The judgment in Cause No. 7-81-102 of the 7th Judicial District Court of Smith County is reformed to delete the $10,000.00 fine. The Clerk of this Court shall mail a copy of this Order 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

Darryl Glenn Phillips v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2024
John Calvin Whitmore v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
Michael Alonzo Rodriguez v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
Telvin Jasmond Green v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
Vollie Earl Henry v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2022
Michael Edward Beseril v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2022
Clifton Denean Dora v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2020
Nixon, Reginald
483 S.W.3d 562 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2016)
Robbins, Neal Hampton
560 S.W.3d 130 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2016)
Taylor, Rickey Lavelle
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Rickey Lavelle Taylor v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014
Johnston v. State
99 S.W.3d 698 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Stephen Clay Johnston v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003
Blevins v. State
74 S.W.3d 125 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Jenkins v. State
870 S.W.2d 626 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Reed v. State
795 S.W.2d 19 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Ex Parte White
726 S.W.2d 149 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Russell v. State
727 S.W.2d 92 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
698 S.W.2d 671, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-youngblood-texcrimapp-1985.