NUMBER 13-24-00635-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
PEDRO CORONADO JR., Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT
OF SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron
Appellant Pedro Coronado Jr. appeals from the trial court’s judgment revoking his
community supervision and adjudicating him guilty of three counts of indecency with a
child by sexual contact, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.11(a)(1), (d).
In one issue, Coronado argues that the judgment must be modified to delete a $1,000 fine not orally pronounced at his sentencing. 1 As modified, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
The trial court entered an order for the above-referenced offenses that placed
Coronado on deferred-adjudication community supervision for ten years and reflected a
$1,000 fine as to count one only. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42A.101(a). Later, the
State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt alleging Coronado violated the terms and
conditions of his community supervision. The trial court held a hearing on the State’s
motion where it found he violated his community supervision and adjudicated him guilty
of the above-referenced offenses. Upon pronouncement of Coronado’s sentence, the trial
court stated in pertinent part, “[I] am going to order that you be delivered by the Sheriff of
San Patricio County to the authorities of the Institutional Division of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice. There you’re going to serve a sentence of 12 years confinement; no
fine.”
Subsequently, the trial court signed two judgments showing the same
pronouncement and signing date, (November 22, 2024), same file-stamped date
(December 4, 2024), and same file-stamped time (“10:01 am”). 2 The difference between
the two lies on the first page where one shows “$1,000” under “Fines” while the other
shows $0.00 under “Fines.” Both, however, have $1,000 listed next to the “General Fine
(§ 12.32, 12.33, 12.34, or 12.35, Penal Code, or any other Code)” box, which is marked
1 The State appeared in this appeal but did not favor this Court with a brief.
2 We observe that one of the judgments was included in the clerk’s record while the other was
included in the second supplemental clerk’s record, together with a letter from the San Patricio District Clerk stating, “It has come to our attention that the Clerk’s Record that was submitted on January 17, 2025[,] was compiled with an incorrect image of the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt.”
2
with an “X.” This appeal ensued.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW
We have the authority to reform a judgment as may be necessary to make the
record speak the truth. Martinez v. State, 527 S.W.3d 310, 329 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi–Edinburg 2017, pet. ref’d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). “A fine is punitive in nature
and is part of a defendant’s sentence.” Anastassov v. State, 664 S.W.3d 815, 820 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2022) (citing Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 767 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011)). “A defendant’s sentence must be pronounced orally in his presence.” Taylor v.
State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.
42.03, § 1(a) (providing that a “sentence shall be pronounced in the defendant’s
presence”); Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131, 136–37 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). And since
a fine is part of the sentence, it must be included in the written judgment. TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. art. 42.01, § 1(9). “[W]hen there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement and
the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” Burt v. State, 445 S.W.3d 752,
757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App.
2004); and then citing Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 287, 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)).
III. ANALYSIS
Although the order granting Coronado deferred adjudication indicates that the trial
court initially assessed a $1,000 fine as to count one, at the time of his sentencing, the
trial court imposed “no fine” in open court. See Taylor, 131 S.W.3d at 502 (“[W]hen guilt
is adjudicated, the order adjudicating guilt sets aside the order deferring adjudication,
including the previously imposed fine.”); see also Jones v. State, No. 11-26-00014-CR,
2026 WL 2117395, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland July 23, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not
3
designated for publication). As such, it was improper for a $1,000 fine to be included in
the judgment when the trial court imposed “no fine” in Coronado’s presence during
sentencing. See Espinal v. State, 729 S.W.3d 921, 928 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2026, no
pet.) (modifying the judgments in counts I and IV to delete the imposition of any fine after
reasoning that the “$100 fines imposed by the judgments . . . were not orally pronounced
in the [a]ppellant’s presence”); Gourley v. State, 710 S.W.3d 368, 379 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 2025, pet. ref’d) (“Here, notwithstanding the fact that Article 102.0185(a) states
that the defendant ‘shall’ pay a $100 fine on conviction of an offense under Chapter 49
with two exceptions not relevant here, . . . the trial court did not orally pronounce the $100
fine that is included in the trial court’s judgment. Thus, we sustain [appellant’s] second
issue and modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the $100 fine.”); see also Wells v.
State, No. 08-23-00098-CR, 2023 WL 8793051, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Dec. 19, 2023,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (deleting the $100 fine where jury did
not assess a fine and where the oral pronouncement of sentence did not include a fine);
Brown v. State, No. 13-26-00088-CR, 2026 WL 1690227, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi–Edinburg June 11, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(reasoning that “[b]ecause the trial court did not orally pronounce a fine in [appellant’s]
presence when it imposed her sentence, it was improper for a $100 fine to be included in
the bill of costs”). Given that the oral pronouncement of “no fine” controls here, we sustain
Coronado’s sole issue and modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the $1,000 fine
improperly shown in both. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); see also In re Arellano, No. 13-24-00101-CR, 2024 WL 515459, at *4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 9, 2024,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
4
IV. CONCLUSION
Having modified the trial court’s judgment in removing the $1,000 fine, we affirm
as modified.
JENNY CRON
Justice
Do not publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered and filed on the
6th day of August, 2026.
5