Bradley Allen Everline v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals for the First District held that the $100 Child Abuse Prevention Fine was improperly included in Bradley Allen Everline’s written judgment because the fine was not orally pronounced at sentencing. The court modified the judgment to strike the fine and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Holdings

1. Because Everline was convicted after the Cost Act's effective date, the Act's provisions reclassifying the Child Abuse Prevention Fee as a fine rather than a court cost applied to his case, even though he committed the offense before the effective date.
2. A fine is part of a defendant's sentence and must be orally pronounced in the defendant's presence. When the written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls; therefore, the $100 fine was improperly included in the written judgment because it was not orally pronounced.
3. The Court of Appeals may modify and reform a judgment when the necessary information is available, including by striking a fine that was improperly included in the written judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Child Abuse Prevention Fine was classified as a fine rather than a court cost because Everline was convicted after the effective date of the Cost Act.
2. Whether the $100 Child Abuse Prevention Fine had to be orally pronounced at sentencing and should be stricken from the written judgment because it was not orally pronounced.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals had authority to modify the judgment to remove the improperly included fine.

Disposition

affirmed