Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach, 02-25-00221-CR, February 05, 2026.
On appeal from County Criminal Court No. 2, Denton County
Synopsis
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s revocation of community supervision but modified the written judgment to delete a $6,000 statutory fine. The court held that because the trial court’s oral pronouncement expressly waived the fine due to indigency, that oral ruling controlled over a conflicting written judgment that erroneously included the fine.
Relevance to Family Law
For the family law practitioner, this case reinforces a fundamental rule of Texas procedure: the “bench controls the pen.” Discrepancies between oral renditions and written decrees are a constant source of post-judgment litigation in divorce and custody matters. Whether dealing with the division of a 401(k), the specific terms of a geographic restriction, or the award of attorney’s fees, this authority underscores that a trial court’s oral pronouncement from the bench is the “true” judgment. When the written decree—often drafted by opposing counsel—contains “judgment creep” or additional terms not articulated by the court, this precedent provides the strategic basis for modification and correction.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Keenan Deandre Black was placed on community supervision for 15 months following charges of DWI (with a BAC of 0.15 or more) and resisting arrest. The State subsequently moved to revoke his supervision, alleging he failed to complete drug and alcohol evaluations, a DWI safety program, and anger management. At the revocation hearing, the trial court found the allegations true and sentenced Black to 90 days in county jail. Crucially, during the oral pronouncement of the sentence, the trial court found Black to be indigent and explicitly waived the $6,000 fine mandated by Chapter 709 of the Texas Transportation Code. However, the written judgment signed later that day included the $6,000 fine. Black appealed, arguing both that contractual defenses (modification and novation) precluded the revocation and that the written judgment must be modified to match the oral waiver of the fine.
Issues Decided
The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking community supervision over the appellant’s claims of contractual modification of his probation terms, and (2) whether an oral pronouncement waiving a fine controls over a conflicting written judgment.
Rules Applied
The court relied on the established principle that when an oral pronouncement of a sentence conflicts with the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Under Texas law, the solution to such a conflict is for the appellate court to modify the written judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement. Additionally, regarding the fine specifically, Texas Transportation Code § 709.001(c) mandates that if a court finds a person indigent, it shall waive all fines and costs imposed under that section. Regarding revocation, the court noted that the State need only prove a single violation of the conditions of community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence to support revocation.
Application
In analyzing the revocation, the court found that the State successfully proved Black failed to complete the required programs. Black’s attempt to assert “contractual defenses”—arguing his supervision officer had essentially modified his deadlines—failed because the officer lacked the authority to override the court’s ordered conditions.
The more significant application of law concerned the conflict in the record. The reporter’s record clearly captured the trial judge orally waiving the $6,000 fine due to Black’s indigency. The written judgment, however, included the fine. The appellate court applied the “oral-controls-written” rule, noting that the written judgment is merely the declaration and record of the oral pronouncement. Because the fine was waived in open court, its inclusion in the written document was a clerical error of constitutional and statutory significance that required modification on appeal.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of Black’s community supervision, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as at least one violation was proven.
In the DWI case, the Court of Appeals modified the judgment and the bill of costs to delete the $6,000 fine, holding that the oral waiver based on indigency was the controlling judicial act.
Practical Application
Family law litigators should use this case as a shield against “proposed order” abuse. Often, a party may attempt to sneak “standard” language into a decree that was never discussed at the final hearing. If a trial judge makes a specific oral ruling regarding the characterization of property or the payment of a debt, and the written decree says otherwise, the transcript of the rendition is your primary evidence. This is particularly relevant in enforcement actions where a party is being held in contempt for failing to follow a written order that actually contradicts the court’s oral rendition.
Checklists
Post-Trial Decree Audit
- Compare the “Rendition of Judgment” notes from the bench or the court reporter’s transcript against the “Entry of Judgment” draft.
- Identify any financial obligations (fees, fines, or costs) included in the written decree that were not orally pronounced.
- Check for findings of indigency or “inability to pay” in the record that should legally preclude certain financial awards.
- Verify that deadlines for program completions (e.g., BIPP or drug testing) in the written order match the specific dates articulated by the judge.
Objecting to the Proposed Decree
- File a Motion to Reform the Judgment if the written instrument adds “boilerplate” conditions not found in the oral rendition.
- Cite the “Oral Controls” rule to the trial coordinator when seeking a hearing on a Motion to Sign.
- Ensure that any “waivers” granted from the bench (e.g., waiver of a social study fee) are explicitly mirrored in the “Judicial Findings” section of the decree.
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 criminal law holding is highly “weaponizable” in Texas family law enforcement proceedings. In many instances, a party is served with a motion for enforcement/contempt based on a written decree that contains a “clerical error” regarding a payment amount or a visitation date. By citing Black v. State and the line of cases holding that the oral pronouncement controls, you can argue that the underlying order is not “clear and specific” enough to support contempt, or that the written order is void to the extent it exceeds the court’s oral rendition. This is also a critical tool for Nunc Pro Tunc motions; if you can show the written decree includes a provision the judge orally waived or never mentioned, you have the right to have that provision deleted, even after the court’s plenary power has expired.
~~f0477f1c-6038-4995-bd1d-96f40050307f~~
Share this content: