Ronald David Piazza v. the State of Texas
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-22-00029-CR
RONALD DAVID PIAZZA, Appellant V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 163rd District Court Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. B190257-R
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 2019, a grand jury indicted Appellant Ronald David Piazza on one count of felony possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115. Piazza pleaded guilty and waived his right to a jury trial. The trial court assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment, imposed a fine of $1500, ordered restitution of $100, suspended the sentence, and placed Piazza on community supervision for five years.
In 2021, the State filed a motion to revoke and alleged that Piazza had violated twelve terms of his community supervision, including failure to abstain from the use or possession of alcohol or drugs; failure to successfully complete an intensive outpatient program; and failure to pay certain fees, a fine, and restitution. The State also alleged that Piazza refused to enter the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility as provided in the terms of his community supervision. In a 2022 hearing on the motion to revoke, Piazza pleaded “true” to alleged violations of ten of the terms of his community supervision, and he admitted to using methamphetamine while on community supervision. After hearing evidence, the court accepted Piazza’s plea of “true,” revoked Piazza’s community supervision, and sentenced Piazza to ten years’ confinement. The court also ordered Piazza to pay all fines, fees, and restitution previously ordered but that had not been paid.
Piazza’s appointed counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Piazza to file a pro se brief, and Piazza did not file a pro se brief.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of the record of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
We have reviewed the entire appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); see also Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29, 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (“A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision and adjudicate guilt.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Nevertheless, we modify the Judgment Revoking Community Supervision1 to delete the imposition of $100 in restitution because at the 2019 sentencing hearing, the trial court did not orally pronounce an order of restitution.
1 The 2019 Judgment of Conviction sentenced Piazza to ten years’
confinement, restitution of $100, a fine of $1500, and court costs of $1733.68, and it also suspended the sentence and placed Piazza on five years of community supervision. The terms of Piazza’s community supervision included the following:
[] Pay restitution of $100.00 to the Jefferson County Regional Crime Lab, c/o Orange County Treasurer’s Office, 123 South 6th Street, Orange, Texas. This amount is to be paid in full by January 10, 2020.
You must provide receipt of said payment to your Supervision Officer[.]
At the 2022 hearing on the motion to revoke, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to support the State’s allegations, and orally pronounced punishment at 10
Due Process requires that a defendant receive fair notice of all the terms of his sentence, which must be orally pronounced in his presence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03 § 1(a); Burt v. State, 445 S.W.3d 752, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The written judgment, including the sentence assessed, is merely the written declaration and embodiment of that oral pronouncement. Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Generally, when the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment vary, the oral pronouncement controls. Id.; Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see also Ette v. State, 559 S.W.3d 511, 516-17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (“[W]e have held the oral pronouncement to control when the conflict concerned an aspect of punishment within the trial court’s authority to alter[.]”).
Restitution is punishment, and it must be included in the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence to be properly included in the written judgment. Ex parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333, 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (explaining that restitution is punishment); Taylor, 131 S.W.3d at 500 (“A defendant’s sentence must be pronounced orally in his presence.”). Therefore, the assessment of restitution should be orally pronounced in open court in the presence of the defendant. Pruitt v. State,
years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections Institutional Division, along with any and all prior fines, fees, and restitution that were previously ordered and have not been paid.
The Judgment Revoking Community Supervision states in relevant part “Restitution: $100.00 (old)[.]”
No. 09-21-00151-CR, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 7528, at **4-5 (Tex. App.— Beaumont Oct. 12, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Johnson v. State, No. 05-19-00155-CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 767, *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 28, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication); Brown v. State, No. 2-08-063-CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 5155, at *6 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth July 2, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
If an order of restitution is not orally pronounced but later appears in a written judgment, the defendant may be entitled to have the restitution order deleted from the judgment. Burt, 445 S.W.3d at 760; see also Taylor, 131 S.W.3d at 500, 502 (explaining that the court of appeals was correct to modify the judgment to delete the fine from the written judgment where the trial court judge did not orally assess a fine as part of the defendant’s sentence).
Our appellate record shows that Piazza did not appeal from his 2019 Judgment of Conviction that placed him on supervision. It is well established that issues related to the original conviction are not generally cognizable on an appeal from the revocation of community supervision. Gossett v. State, 282 S.W.2d 59, 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955); King v. State, 161 S.W.3d 264, 266 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. ref’d); see also Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (applying general rule to deferred adjudication). “An appeal from an order revoking community supervision is limited to the propriety of the revocation.” Stafford v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ronald David Piazza v. the State of Texas (Ronald David Piazza v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.