Oral Rulings Trump Written Clerical Errors: Why Only the Judge—Not the Supervisor—Can Modify Court-Ordered Conditions
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach, 02-25-00222-CR, February 05, 2026.
On appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 2 of Denton County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Second Court of Appeals reaffirmed the foundational principle that when a trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence conflicts with its written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. While the court modified the judgment to delete a $6,000 fine that was orally waived due to indigency, it simultaneously upheld the revocation of community supervision, ruling that only a judge—not a supervision officer—possesses the legal authority to modify court-ordered conditions.
Relevance to Family Law
For the family law practitioner, this holding is a critical reminder of the “Rendition vs. Entry” doctrine. In the heat of high-conflict litigation, the trial judge’s oral rulings from the bench constitute the legal rendition of judgment. If the final written decree—whether through clerical oversight or aggressive drafting by opposing counsel—includes terms not pronounced in open court (such as un-ordered fees, specific injunctions, or modified support amounts), the oral record remains the supreme authority. This case provides the appellate framework for correcting written decrees that drift away from the court’s actual pronounced intent.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Keenan Deandre Black pled nolo contendere to DWI (with an alcohol concentration level of 0.15 or more) and resisting arrest. The trial court initially suspended his sentences, placing him on 15 months of community supervision. Less than a year later, the State moved to revoke, alleging Black failed to complete drug/alcohol evaluations, a DWI safety program, and anger management. At the revocation hearing, the trial court found these allegations true and sentenced Black to 90 days in jail. Critically, during sentencing, the trial judge found Black indigent and orally waived a $6,000 statutory fine. However, the subsequent written judgment erroneously included the $6,000 fine. Black appealed, arguing both that the fine should be deleted and that his probation should not have been revoked because he believed his supervision officer had modified his deadlines.
Issues Decided
- Whether a trial court’s oral pronouncement waiving a fine at sentencing takes precedence over a conflicting written judgment.
- Whether a trial court abuses its discretion by revoking community supervision when the defendant claims his supervision officer modified the court-ordered deadlines.
Rules Applied
The court applied the established Texas rule that the oral pronouncement of a sentence is the legally operative event; the written judgment is merely the “declaration and embodiment” of that pronouncement. When the two conflict, the oral version controls. Regarding the revocation of community supervision, the court applied an “abuse of discretion” standard. The court also clarified that community supervision is a court-ordered arrangement, not a private contract. Consequently, the terms of that “contract” can only be modified by the trial judge, not by a community supervision officer or through the doctrine of novation.
Application
The appellate court performed a bifurcated analysis. First, it reviewed the record of the sentencing hearing, which clearly reflected the trial judge’s intent to waive all Chapter 709 fines due to the defendant’s indigency. Because the written judgment contained a $6,000 fine that was explicitly waived on the record, the court found the written entry to be a clerical error subject to modification.
Second, the court addressed Black’s defense against revocation. Black asserted “contractual defenses,” essentially arguing that his interactions with his probation officer constituted a “modification” or “novation” of his original probation terms. The court rejected this theory, emphasizing that the power to modify probation conditions rests solely with the court. Because the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Black failed to meet the original court-ordered deadlines, the trial court was well within its discretion to revoke his supervision, regardless of any perceived leniency or timeline adjustments discussed with his supervision officer.
Holding
The court held that the written judgment must be modified to delete the $6,000 fine to conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. The oral waiver of the fine, predicated on a finding of indigency, is the legally controlling order of the court.
The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking community supervision. It ruled that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings of probation violations and that a defendant cannot rely on a supervision officer’s lack of authority to “modify” court-mandated deadlines as a defense against revocation.
Practical Application
In family law enforcement and contempt proceedings, practitioners often encounter clients who claim they had a “side deal” or an “understanding” with a caseworker, a Guardian Ad Litem, or even the other parent that deviated from the court’s order. Black reaffirms that such informal modifications are legally toothless. If a client needs to deviate from a possession schedule or a payment deadline, a formal Motion to Modify or a Rule 11 Agreement filed with the court is the only safe harbor. Furthermore, when drafting final decrees, counsel must ensure the written instrument meticulously tracks the judge’s rendition from the bench to avoid the need for a nunc pro tunc correction or a modification appeal.
Checklists
Ensuring the Written Decree Matches the Oral Rendition
- Request a Court Reporter: Never waive the record during a final rendition or a ruling on a Motion for Enforcement.
- Note Specific Waivers: If a judge waives attorney’s fees, interest, or specific costs, ensure the specific statutory basis (e.g., indigency) is noted on the record.
- Review the “Drafting Gap”: Compare the proposed written decree against your contemporaneous notes from the bench ruling before signing off on “form and substance.”
- File for Correction Promptly: If a clerical error is discovered, use a Motion to Modify the Judgment or a Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc while the trial court retains plenary power.
Defending Against Unauthorized “Informal” Modifications
- Identify the Source of Authority: Determine if the person who allegedly “authorized” a deviation (e.g., an evaluator or coordinator) actually had the power to do so under the existing order.
- Advise on Strict Compliance: Explicitly warn clients that “permission” from a third party does not supersede a signed judicial order.
- Document Denials: If a supervisor or officer refuses to enforce a deadline, document the refusal but advise the client to seek a judicial emergency order rather than relying on the officer’s silence.
Citation
Black v. State, Nos. 02-25-00221-CR, 02-25-00222-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 5, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in Texas divorce and custody cases to defeat “estoppel” or “waiver” arguments. When an obligor fails to pay child support or follow a possession schedule and claims, “the social worker said it was fine,” Black provides the authoritative response: the court’s order is not a contract subject to informal novation. Furthermore, in appeals of “Enforcement by Contempt,” where a party faces jail time, Black supports the argument that any ambiguity between what the judge said and what the judge wrote must be resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement. This is a vital shield for respondents who may have relied on the judge’s spoken words in court, only to be “ambushed” by a different written requirement in the signed order.
~~56e4a9a8-b9f4-4801-8b66-f2f5ad8b203b~~
Share this content:
