Faugh v. State

481 S.W.2d 412, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1924
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 14, 1972
Docket45210
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 481 S.W.2d 412 (Faugh v. State) 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
Faugh v. State, 481 S.W.2d 412, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1924 (Tex. 1972).

Opinions

OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for unlawful possession of a dangerous drug. Appellant entered a plea of guilty before a jury, which found her guilty, assessed her punishment at a fine of $1250, and recommended probation. The court ordered that appellant pay $500 of the fine as a condition of probation, and probated $750 of the fine.

Appellant raises two grounds of error. In both grounds she contends that the trial court erred in ordering that a portion of the fine be paid. In support of her contention, appellant cites our holding in the recent case of Johnson v. State, 473 S.W. 2d 939 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).

[413]*413We feel that Johnson v. State, supra, is controlling. While the verdict form in Johnson v. State, supra, differed somewhat from the one in the instant case, the point of decision in that case was that when the jury has recommended probation of a fine, as was done in the present case, the court may not require that it be paid.

The order should be reformed to show that the entire fine of $1250 is probated to conform to the verdict. As reformed, the order granting probation is affirmed. If the fine has actually been paid, it is ordered that it be remitted to appellant.

We also note, ex mero motu, that the judgment in this case erroneously recites that appellant plead not guilty. The docket sheet, charge to the jury, and stipulated statement of facts all recite that appellant entered a plea of guilty.

Where this Court has the necessary data before it for reformation, the judgment may be reformed on appeal, e. g., Johnson v. State, 478 S.W.2d 442 (Tex.Cr.App., delivered March 8, 1972); Vasquez v. State, 477 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.Cr.App., delivered February 16, 1972); Golden v. State, 434 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). Therefore, the judgment is reformed to reflect that appellant entered a plea of guilty.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Ex Parte Taylor
36 S.W.3d 883 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Athey v. State
697 S.W.2d 818 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Franklin v. State
576 S.W.2d 621 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Basaldua v. State
558 S.W.2d 2 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Taylor v. State
549 S.W.2d 722 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Batten v. State
549 S.W.2d 718 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Aaron v. State
546 S.W.2d 277 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Lee v. State
516 S.W.2d 151 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Shappley v. State
520 S.W.2d 766 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Oliva v. State
500 S.W.2d 144 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Faugh v. State
481 S.W.2d 412 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
481 S.W.2d 412, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faugh-v-state-texcrimapp-1972.