Ted William Reemtsma v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ted William Reemtsma v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 10, 2006·No. 02-05-00429-CR·Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-05-429-CR

TED WILLIAM REEMTSMA APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION^{^[1]}

------------

Ted William Reemtsma appeals the trial court=s judgment revoking his community supervision for felony driving while intoxicated. In a single issue, appellant complains that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay a $1000 fine as a condition of parole. The State concedes that the trial court was without authority to order repayment of a fine as a condition of parole.^{^[2]} Accordingly, we sustain appellant=s issue and modify the trial court=s judgment to omit the provision in the judgment requiring appellant to pay a $1000 fine as a condition of parole.^{^[3]} We affirm the trial court=s judgment as modified.^{^[4]}

PER CURIAM

PANEL F: CAYCE, C.J.; WALKER and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 10, 2006

^{^[1]}See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

^{^[2]}See Slaughter v. State, Nos. 02-04-00050-CR, 02-04-00051-CR, 2005 WL 183142, at *1 (Tex. App.CFort Worth Jan. 27, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication); Green v. State, Nos. 02-03-00377-CR, 02-03-00397-CR, 2005 WL 78326, at *4 (Tex. App.CFort Worth Jan. 13, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication) (both holding same).

^{^[3]}Belt v. State, 127 S.W.3d 277, 281 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 2004, no pet.); Green, 2005 WL 78326, at *4.

^{^[4]}See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b).

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

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-05-429-CR

TED WILLIAM REEMTSMA APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION^{^[1]}

------------

Ted William Reemtsma appeals the trial court=s judgment revoking his community supervision for felony driving while intoxicated. In a single issue, appellant complains that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay a $1000 fine as a condition of parole. The State concedes that the trial court was without authority to order repayment of a fine as a condition of parole.^{^[2]} Accordingly, we sustain appellant=s issue and modify the trial court=s judgment to omit the provision in the judgment requiring appellant to pay a $1000 fine as a condition of parole.^{^[3]} We affirm the trial court=s judgment as modified.^{^[4]}

PER CURIAM

PANEL F: CAYCE, C.J.; WALKER and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 10, 2006

^{^[1]}See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

^{^[2]}See Slaughter v. State, Nos. 02-04-00050-CR, 02-04-00051-CR, 2005 WL 183142, at *1 (Tex. App.CFort Worth Jan. 27, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication); Green v. State, Nos. 02-03-00377-CR, 02-03-00397-CR, 2005 WL 78326, at *4 (Tex. App.CFort Worth Jan. 13, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication) (both holding same).

^{^[3]}Belt v. State, 127 S.W.3d 277, 281 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 2004, no pet.); Green, 2005 WL 78326, at *4.

^{^[4]}See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b).

Ted William Reemtsma v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Ted William Reemtsma v. State (Ted William Reemtsma v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

V.

Related