From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex Parte Hernandez

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Oct 16, 1985
698 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)

Summary

finding sentence void and remanding for new sentencing because defendant was fined and act in effect at time of his sentencing did not authorize fine

Summary of this case from Pomier v. State

Opinion

No. 69381.

October 16, 1985.

Appeal from 36th Judicial District Court, Aransas County, Ronald M. Yeager, J.

Laurel D. Owens, Huntsville, for appellant.

Thomas L. Bridges, Dist. Atty. Joseph V. Collina, Asst. Dist. Atty., Sinton, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the court en banc.

OPINION


On November 29, 1983, applicant pled guilty to the offense of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance (penalty group I). The trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years confinement and a fine of $620.00. Some two months earlier, on September 14, 1983, this Court had held unconstitutional House Bill 730, which was passed by the Legislature in 1981 and purported to amend the Texas Controlled Substances Act, V.A.C.S., Art. 4476-15. Ex parte Crisp, 661 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983). Under that holding the Controlled Substances Act stood as though H.B. 730 had never been enacted. 661 S.W.2d at 948. Applicant herein was sentenced according to the provision of H.B. 730, however, which provided for a fine as well as a range of five to 99 years. The original Act had no provision for a fine. Under the original Act, in effect at the time of applicant's sentencing, the verdict on punishment was unauthorized by law and was therefore void at its inception. Moya v. State, 681 S.W.2d 41, 42 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984).

This Court is without authority to reform applicant's sentence. The proper procedure is to remand for new sentencing. Releford v. State, 683 S.W.2d 385 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984); Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985). Because punishment was assessed by the court, we remand for a new punishment hearing only. Ocker v. State, 477 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972).

The relief prayed for is granted. Applicant's sentence is hereby vacated and applicant is ordered into the custody of the Aransas County Sheriff for a new punishment hearing and sentence. A copy of this opinion shall be forwarded to the Texas Department of Corrections.

It is so ordered.

TOM G. DAVIS, J., not participating.


Summaries of

Ex Parte Hernandez

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Oct 16, 1985
698 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)

finding sentence void and remanding for new sentencing because defendant was fined and act in effect at time of his sentencing did not authorize fine

Summary of this case from Pomier v. State

determining sentence void and remanding for new sentencing because defendant was illegally sentenced

Summary of this case from Kuol v. State
Case details for

Ex Parte Hernandez

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte Domingo HERNANDEZ, Jr

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: Oct 16, 1985

Citations

698 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Gunther v. State

Since the trial court's assessment of punishment at 90 days, probated, and an $800 fine is unauthorized by…

Pomier v. State

Although appellant does not specifically argue that his punishment is improper on this basis, we conclude…