Background
Jenner Ramirez was charged with one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child, one count of super aggravated sexual assault of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and two counts of indecency with a child by contact. The State abandoned the first two counts after presenting its evidence. At the end of the guilt-innocence phase, the jury found Ramirez guilty of the two counts of aggravated sexual assault and of one count of indecency with a child.
The jury assessed Ramirez’s punishment at 99 years’ imprisonment for the two counts of aggravated sexual assault and at 15 years’ imprisonment for the indecency count. After the trial court read the jury’s verdicts, it informed the jurors that their service was concluded and released them. Although the trial court later entered a written judgment of conviction sentencing Ramirez consistent with the jury’s verdicts, it never formally orally pronounced sentence.
Ramirez appealed his convictions. In his brief, he argued that the case should be remanded to allow the trial court to orally pronounce sentence. The State subsequently filed a motion to abate and remand the appeal for the same reason. The Court of Appeals agreed with both Ramirez and the State.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that the legislature codified two distinct requirements that must be performed in the defendant’s presence at the end of a jury trial: reading the punishment verdict and pronouncing sentence. After a jury assesses a defendant’s sentence, the trial court imposes that sentence. With certain statutory exceptions, courts must orally pronounce the sentence in the defendant’s presence. A trial court’s reading of the jury’s sentencing verdict does not satisfy the separate requirement that the trial court pronounce the defendant’s sentence.
The court further explained that the pronouncement of sentence is the appealable event, while the written sentence or order memorializes that pronouncement and should comport with it. The judgment, including the sentence assessed, is a written manifestation of the oral pronouncement. If no sentence was ever rendered, there is no valid judgment; without a valid judgment, there is no conviction for a defendant to appeal.
Applying those principles, the court held that because the trial court failed to orally pronounce Ramirez’s sentence in his presence, no valid judgment yet existed and the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over his appeal. That lack of jurisdiction did not require dismissal in these circumstances. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.4, the court must not dismiss an appeal if the trial court’s omission can be corrected. Because the omission could be corrected by allowing the trial court to orally pronounce Ramirez’s sentence with him present, the court abated the appeal and remanded the cause for the trial court to orally pronounce the jury’s sentence in open court with Ramirez present.
Key Takeaways
- Reading the jury’s punishment verdict and formally pronouncing sentence are distinct requirements; the former does not satisfy the latter.
- Because no sentence had been orally pronounced in Ramirez’s presence, no valid judgment existed and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction, but the correctable omission warranted abatement and remand rather than dismissal.
- On remand, the trial court must cause notice of a hearing to be given and thereafter formally orally pronounce the jury’s sentence in Ramirez’s presence. The new sentencing hearing must be held within 30 days of the date of the memorandum opinion.
- A supplemental reporter’s record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s new judgment of conviction must be filed in the Court of Appeals within 45 days of the date of the memorandum opinion. The appeal will be reinstated when the supplemental records are filed.
- Ramirez will have 30 days from reinstatement to file a supplemental appellant’s brief. The State will have 30 days from the date Ramirez files his supplemental brief, if any, to file its appellee’s brief.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores that a written judgment consistent with the jury’s verdicts does not cure the absence of the required oral pronouncement of sentence. It also distinguishes the jurisdictional consequence of that omission from the appropriate appellate response: where the omission can be corrected, Rule 44.4 calls for preserving the appeal through abatement and remand rather than dismissing it.
The court did not decide the merits of Ramirez’s convictions. Its order establishes a process for correcting the sentencing omission, creating a valid judgment, supplementing the appellate record, and reinstating the appeal for further briefing.