Michael Alonzo Rodriguez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 5, 2023
• Docket: 04-22-00047-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas OPINION

No. 04-22-00047-CR

Michael Alonzo RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 630792 Honorable Grace M. Uzomba, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 5, 2023

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

In this appeal following a plea bargain agreement, appellant Michael A. Rodriguez

complains of the trial court’s imposition of a $6,000 fine under the Texas Transportation Code.

The State concedes error. We modify the judgment and affirm as modified.

BACKGROUND

In January of 2020, Rodriguez was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated

with a blood alcohol concentration level greater than 0.15. In November of 2021, Rodriguez

entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to a DWI 1st offense, a Class B misdemeanor. At 04-22-00047-CR

the plea hearing Rodriguez was admonished by the trial court that he was subject to a punishment

of between 72 hours and 180 days in the Bexar County Jail, and a fine not to exceed $2,000. The

State and Rodriguez asked the trial court to impose a $600 fine, court costs, and 180 days in the

Bexar County Jail, probated for 12 months. The trial court, having accepted the plea, followed the

agreed recommendation, but imposed an additional $6,000 fine.

Rodriguez objected to the imposition of the fine and subsequently filed a motion for new

trial. The trial court ultimately held an evidentiary hearing and filed findings of facts and

conclusions of law to support its decision to impose the $6,000 fine. The trial court reasoned the

$6,000 fine was a “mandatory collateral consequence” required by section 709.001(b)(3) of the

Transportation Code as “it was shown that [Rodriguez] had an alcohol level of over 0.15. . . .”

Rodriguez timely appealed.

Rodriguez argues the trial court erred in imposing the $6,000 fine and requests that we

vacate the judgment and remand the cause for a new punishment hearing. The State concedes that

the record contains no competent evidence that Rodriguez’s BAC was 0.15 or higher and asks this

court to modify the judgment to delete the $6,000 fine.

ANALYSIS

Standard of Review

We construe a statute according to its plain meaning, unless the language is ambiguous, or

the plain meaning leads to absurd results the legislature could not have intended. Boykin v. State,

818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The plain meaning is determined by examining the

wording and structure of the statute, construing the words and phrases according to the rules of

grammar and usage. Liverman v. State, 470 S.W.3d 831, 836 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). We may

presume that every word “has been used for a purpose and that each word, phrase, clause, and

sentence should be given effect if reasonably possible.” State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516, 520 (Tex.

-2- 04-22-00047-CR

Crim. App. 1997). Statutory construction is a question of law we review de novo. Ramos v. State,

303 S.W.3d 302, 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

Applicable Law

Under the Texas Penal Code, a DWI is typically a Class B misdemeanor. TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. § 49.04(a), (b). An individual adjudged guilty of a Class B misdemeanor is subject to a fine

not to exceed $2,000. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.22(1). But if it is shown at the trial that the

defendant’s alcohol concentration level was 0.15 or greater, the offense becomes a Class A

misdemeanor, and the accompanying fine is not to exceed $4,000. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§§ 12.21(1), 49.04(d). In addition to the penal code’s fines, the Texas Transportation Code

mandates that a person who is “finally convicted” of a DWI-related offense shall pay a fine of

$6,000, if evidence is offered at trial that shows the defendant’s alcohol concentration level was

0.15 or greater. TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 709.001(b).

Application

Here, although the information alleged that Rodriguez’s BAC was 0.15 or more, during the

hearing, the State explicitly waived the 0.15 enhancement. The only other mention of Rodriguez’s

BAC came from the prosecutor at the plea hearing. In its appellate brief, the “State acknowledges

that the unsworn statements of counsel in this circumstance are insufficient to support the

imposition of the $6,000 fine under the Transportation Code.” We agree. See State v. Lopez, 631

S.W.3d 107, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (noting that unsworn statements of counsel were not

competent evidence where counsel lacked first-hand knowledge). We therefore sustain

Rodriguez’s third issue.

A fine is part of a sentence. State v. Kersh, 127 S.W.3d 775, 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

“An illegal sentence is one that is not authorized by law; therefore, a sentence that is outside the

range of punishment authorized by law is considered illegal.” Ex parte Pue, 552 S.W.3d 226, 228

-3- 04-22-00047-CR

(Tex. Crim. App. 2018). An appellate court may notice and correct an illegal sentence. Mizell v.

State, 119 S.W.3d 804, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

We hold that the trial court erred by imposing the $6,000 fine. Rodriguez argues he is

entitled to a new punishment hearing because the $6,000 fine was an illegal sentence. The State

argues we can reform the judgment. We agree with the State and reform the judgment to delete the

unauthorized fine as the necessary information is available for us to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P.

43.2(b); Ex parte Youngblood, 698 S.W.2d 671, 672 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (remedy in

unauthorized fine case is to delete the improper fine from the judgment); Blevins v. State, 74

S.W.3d 125, 132 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d).

CONCLUSION

We modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the $6,000 fine and affirm the trial court’s

judgment as modified. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1 (requiring courts of appeals to hand down written

opinions that are as brief as practicable but that address every issue raised and necessary to final

disposition of the appeal).

Beth Watkins, Justice

PUBLISH

-4-