David Hobbs Ray v. State, 02-25-00269-CR, March 12, 2026.
On appeal from 78th District Court, Wichita County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that an appellate court must modify a written judgment to “speak the truth” when it conflicts with a trial court’s oral pronouncement, even within the context of an Anders brief. Because the oral pronouncement controls, the court reformed a ten-year sentence in the written judgment to the five-year sentence actually delivered by the judge from the bench.
Relevance to Family Law
For the family law practitioner, this criminal holding reinforces the critical importance of the “oral rendition.” In high-conflict divorce and SAPCR litigation, the period between the judge’s bench ruling and the signing of the Final Decree is often a “no-man’s land” where discrepancies arise—whether by clerical error or aggressive drafting by opposing counsel. This case confirms that the record of the oral pronouncement is the ultimate authority, providing a clear path for appellate modification when a written order erroneously deviates from the court’s stated intent in open court. Furthermore, the reliance on judicial confessions in this case serves as a stark reminder of the “crossover” impact criminal admissions have on character and fitness determinations in the family court.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Appellant David Hobbs Ray pleaded guilty, without a plea bargain, to eleven counts of possessing child pornography under Texas Penal Code § 43.26. During a unitary hearing on guilt and punishment, the State introduced Ray’s signed judicial confessions for each of the eleven offenses. The trial court found him guilty and assessed punishment. Crucially, during the oral pronouncement of the sentence, the trial court assessed five years’ confinement for Count Ten. However, the written judgment subsequently entered by the clerk for Count Ten reflected a sentence of ten years’ confinement. Ray’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous, but the State’s responsive letter pointed out the discrepancy between the oral and written sentences for Count Ten.
Issues Decided
- Whether an appellate court possesses the authority to modify a written judgment to correct a clerical error when that error is discovered during the review of an Anders (frivolous) appeal.
- Whether a trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence prevails over a conflicting written judgment.
Rules Applied
- Oral vs. Written Control: It is a long-standing rule of Texas law that when there is a conflict between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.
- Appellate Power to Modify: Under Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b) and Ette v. State, 551 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017), appellate courts have the authority to reform and modify a judgment to “speak the truth” if they have the necessary information and data in the record to do so.
- Anders v. California: In a criminal appeal where counsel finds no non-frivolous grounds for appeal, they must file a brief meeting the requirements of Anders, which the court must then independently review. However, a clerical error in a judgment does not necessarily prevent an appeal from being classified as “frivolous” if the court can simply reform the judgment.
Application
The Second Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record following the filing of the Anders brief. The court agreed with the State’s observation that the Count Ten judgment was erroneous. Because the reporter’s record clearly contained the trial court’s oral pronouncement of five years, the appellate court determined it had the “necessary data and information” to correct the written judgment. The court reasoned that modifying the judgment to reflect the actual sentence pronounced in open court was a mandatory correction to make the record “speak the truth.” Even though the rest of the appeal lacked any arguable grounds for reversal, the court exercised its power to reform the judgment rather than requiring a new hearing or a Nunc Pro Tunc at the trial level.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s oral pronouncement controls over the written judgment. When the record provides the necessary information to correct a discrepancy, the appellate court must modify the judgment to reflect the truth of the trial court’s ruling.
The court modified the Count Ten judgment to change the sentence from ten years to five years of confinement. As modified, the judgment was affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted because the remainder of the appeal was indeed frivolous.
Practical Application
This ruling provides several strategic takeaways for family law litigators dealing with complex orders:
- The Transcript is Your Shield: If a Final Decree contains terms that were not part of the judge’s rendition—or omits terms that were—the oral transcript is your primary evidence for a Motion to Modify or an appeal. The written order is merely the ministerial recording of the judicial act of rendition.
- Preserving the Record on Rendition: Ensure the court reporter is “on the record” for the entirety of the judge’s ruling. If the judge rules in chambers and later summarizes on the record, be certain the summary is exhaustive.
- Correcting Clerical Errors: This case demonstrates that “speaking the truth” is a high priority for appellate courts. If a clerical error exists, it can be corrected on appeal without the need for a full reversal or a remand for a new trial, saving clients the expense of a second evidentiary hearing.
Checklists
Ensuring Post-Trial Order Accuracy
- Obtain the court reporter’s transcript of the judge’s rendition immediately after the hearing.
- Cross-reference the “Standard Possession Order” or “Property Division” language in the draft decree against the specific oral deviations ordered by the bench.
- Verify that any “merger clauses” in the written order do not inadvertently extinguish specific oral findings made by the court regarding “best interest.”
- If a discrepancy is found, file a Motion to Reform the Judgment before the plenary power expires, citing the oral pronouncement as controlling.
Leveraging Criminal Crossovers in SAPCR
- Secure copies of any signed “Judicial Confessions” from parallel criminal proceedings.
- Determine if the criminal sentence included an “oral pronouncement” of conditions (such as no-contact orders) that were omitted from the criminal judgment but are relevant to protective orders in family court.
- Use the Ray principle to argue that a parent’s oral admission in court is a binding judicial admission, regardless of how the final criminal judgment was eventually worded or categorized (e.g., deferred adjudication).
Citation
David Hobbs Ray v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2026, no pet.) (No. 02-25-00269-CR).
Full Opinion
The full opinion can be found here: Full Opinion Link
Family Law Crossover
In Texas family law, the “weaponization” of Ray v. State lies in the finality and weight of the oral record. When a party judicially confesses to a crime—as Ray did here regarding child pornography—that confession is admissible in a subsequent custody battle as a statement against interest and often as conclusive evidence of conduct.
Strategically, if you are representing the protective parent, you must look beyond the final criminal judgment. As seen in Ray, the written judgment can contain clerical errors. If the criminal judge orally lambasted the defendant or made specific findings about the nature of the crime that were not included in the standard-form judgment, you can use the Ray principle to argue that the oral record represents the “truth” of the judicial finding. Conversely, if you are defending a parent, Ray provides the mechanism to force a correction of an over-broad written criminal judgment that might otherwise unfairly prejudice your client in a custody evaluation or a social study. The oral word is the “ruling”; the paper is just the “report.”
~~cdc311bd-81fb-443a-a434-1c25ce19ea39~~
Share this content: