Aaron Chandler Gaston v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-22-00215-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

AARON CHANDLER GASTON, § APPEAL FROM THE
APPELLANT

V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Aaron Chandler Gaston appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI). In a
single issue, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that”his
sentences run consecutively. We modify and affirm as modified.

BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by information with the offense of DWI in trial court cause
number 002-81237-22. Pursuant to an open plea, Appellant pleaded “guilty.” During the same
plea hearing, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to four other cases: three DWI cases (trial court cause
numbers 002-81236-22, 002-81235-22, 002-80212-22) and a possession of marijuana case (trial
court cause number 002-81234-22). Pursuant to plea agreements, Appellant agreed to serve 200
days of confinement and pay a $100 fine in one of the DWI cases, trial court cause number 002-
81235-22, and agreed to twenty days of confinement in the marijuana case. The parties agreed
those sentences would run concurrently.
Following Appellant’s “guilty” plea, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. The
trial court sentenced Appellant to 350 days of imprisonment in this DWI case (trial court cause
number 002-81237-22). It further ordered that Appellant’s sentence be stacked with the other
cases to which he pleaded “guilty.” Appellant objected, and the trial court overruled his
objection. The trial court’s order, change in status form, and commitment order each note that
Appellant’s sentence is to run consecutively with his sentence in cause number 002-81236-22,
another DWI case. Appellant filed a motion for new trial, alleging the cumulation order is
improper. The trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed.

CUMULATION OF SENTENCES
In his sole issue, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered
that his DWI sentences run consecutively. The State concedes the error.
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
Under article 42.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial judge has the discretion
to cumulate the sentences for two or more convictions. Smith v. State, 575 S.W.2d 41, 41 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1979); Harvey v. State, 821 S.W.2d 389, 392 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
1991, pet. ref’d); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.08 (West 2018). A trial court abuses its
discretion when it applies an erroneous legal standard or when no reasonable view of the record
supports the trial court’s conclusion under the correct law and facts viewed in the light most
favorable to its legal conclusion. DuBose v. State, 915 S.W.2d 493, 497–98 (Tex. Crim. App.
1996), overruled on other grounds by Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 90 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997). As a practical matter, however, an abuse of discretion generally will be found only if the
trial court imposes consecutive sentences where the law requires concurrent sentences, where the
court imposes concurrent sentences but the law requires consecutive ones, or where the court
otherwise fails to observe the statutory requirements pertaining to sentencing. Nicholas v. State,
56 S.W.3d 760, 764–65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d). In short, so long as
the law authorizes the imposition of cumulative sentences, a trial judge has absolute discretion to
stack sentences. Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 480 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989, pet.
ref’d) (citing Smith, 575 S.W.2d at 41, Carney v. State, 573 S.W.2d 24, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978)).
Texas Penal Code Section 3.03 statutorily limits the trial court’s general authority under
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.08 to order consecutive sentences. See LaPorte v.
State, 840 S.W.2d 412, 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Subject to some statutory exceptions not
pertinent here, Section 3.03 provides that if a defendant is found guilty of more than one offense
prosecuted in a single criminal action, the sentences assessed for those convictions shall run

2
concurrently. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 3.03(a) (West Supp. 2022); Frank v. State, 992 S.W.2d
756, 758 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). A defendant may be prosecuted in a
single criminal action for all offenses arising out of the same criminal episode. TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 3.02(a) (West 2021). “Criminal episode” means the commission of two or more
offenses, regardless of whether the harm is directed toward or inflicted upon more than one
person when (1) the offenses are committed pursuant to the same transaction; (2) pursuant to two
or more transactions that are connected or constitute a common scheme or plan; or (3) the
offenses are the repeated commission of the same or similar offenses. Id. § 3.01 (West 2021). A
defendant is prosecuted in “a single criminal action” whenever allegations and evidence of more
than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode are presented in a single trial or plea
proceeding. Ex parte Carter, 521 S.W.3d 344, 346–47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
Analysis
Appellant argues, and the State concedes, he was prosecuted in a single criminal action
for DWI offenses arising out of the same criminal episode. All of Appellant’s five charges were
called together by the trial court on the same day and during the same plea hearing. Appellant
pleaded “guilty” to each case at the same time. And the trial court assessed punishment in each
case at the same hearing. Four of the charges involved repeated commission of the same
offense: DWI. And the remaining charge involved possession of marijuana. The trial court did
not order that the DWI sentence in this case run consecutively with the possession case. It
ordered it to run consecutively with another DWI case. As a result, the trial court abused its
discretion in ordering the sentences run consecutively. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 3.03(a);
Nicholas, 56 S.W.3d at 764-65; Frank, 992 S.W.2d at 758.
However, the cumulation order does not appear in the judgment, and the State argues we
have nothing to reform. But we have the authority to modify a judgment to make the record
speak the truth when we have the necessary data and information to do so. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 43.2(b); see also Ingram v. State, 261 S.W.3d 749, 754 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.);
Davis v. State, 323 S.W.3d 190, 198 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref'd). Here, the cumulation
ruling appears on the trial court’s order, change in status form, and commitment order.
Specifically, each one states, “to run consecutive with 002-81236-22.” Furthermore, the trial
court orally pronounced that the sentences would run consecutively. When the oral
pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment vary, the oral pronouncement controls.

3
Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The rationale for this rule is that
the imposition of sentence is the crucial moment when all of the parties are physically present at
the sentencing hearing and able to hear and respond to the imposition of sentence. Ex parte
Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Once he leaves the courtroom, the
defendant begins serving the sentence imposed. Id. Thus, “it is the pronouncement of sentence
that is the appealable event, and the written sentence or order simply memorializes it and should
comport therewith.” Coffey, 979 S.W.3d at 328.
Having determined the trial court abused its discretion, we set aside the order of
cumulation, and the trial court’s judgment should be modified to reflect that Appellant’s sentence
run concurrently. See Moore v. State, 371 S.W.3d 221, 229 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (setting
aside cumulation order where trial judge abused discretion by cumulating sentences and
appellate court erred by affirming cumulation order); see also Morris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 281,
295-96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citing Beedy v. State, 250 S.W.3d 107, 113 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (noting that when trial court erroneously cumulates sentence, remedy is to delete
cumulation order so sentences run concurrently). We sustain Appellant’s sole issue.

DISPOSITION
Having sustained Appellant’s sole issue, we set aside the cumulation order and modify
the judgment to reflect that his sentences run concurrently. We affirm the judgment as modified.

JAMES T. WORTHEN
Chief Justice

Opinion delivered January 11, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

4
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 11, 2023

NO. 12-22-00215-CR

AARON CHANDLER GASTON,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 002-81237-22)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the
court below should be modified and as modified, affirmed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
cumulation order be set aside and the judgment of the court below be modified to reflect that
Appellant’s sentences run concurrently; in all other respects the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.
James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.