Correcting the Criminal Record: Ensuring Judgments Accurately Reflect Victim Impact Statements for Use in Child Custody Litigation
Opinion by Justice McLaughlin, 14-24-00706-CR, February 03, 2026.
On appeal from the 487th District Court of Harris County
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals modified a criminal judgment to delete a $100 fine that was not orally pronounced at sentencing and reformed clerical errors to ensure the judgment accurately reflected the underlying statutes and the submission of victim impact statements. This ruling reaffirms that oral pronouncements control over written judgments and underscores the appellate court’s broad authority to reform records to “speak the truth” when the necessary data is available.
Relevance to Family Law
For family law practitioners, the integrity of a criminal judgment involving a party to a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) or a divorce is paramount. A judgment that fails to accurately reflect the existence of a victim impact statement—or the specific statutory nature of a crime—can impede a litigator’s ability to establish a pattern of abuse, justify the termination of parental rights, or argue for supervised access. Bonilla provides the procedural roadmap for ensuring that the criminal record used as evidence in family court is factually and legally precise, particularly regarding the formal recognition of the victim’s voice.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Appellant Jose Delcarmen Bonilla pleaded guilty to the first-degree felonies of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault of his stepdaughter. Following a pre-sentence investigation report and a hearing, the trial court sentenced him to fifty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Critically, during the oral sentencing, the trial court did not pronounce any fines. However, the written judgment subsequently entered included a $100 “Child Abuse Prevention” fine. Additionally, the written judgments omitted the specific sections of the Texas Penal Code governing the offenses and incorrectly indicated that no victim impact statement had been returned to the State, despite the record reflecting otherwise.
Issues Decided
- Whether a written judgment must be modified to delete a punitive fine that was not orally pronounced in the defendant’s presence at sentencing.
- Whether an appellate court should exercise its power to reform a judgment to correct clerical omissions regarding statutory citations and the status of victim impact statements.
Rules Applied
The court relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b), which grants appellate courts the authority to modify a trial court’s judgment to make the record “speak the truth.” Under the precedents of Armstrong v. State and Taylor v. State, a fine is punitive and constitutes part of a defendant’s sentence; therefore, it must be orally pronounced in the defendant’s presence. When a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Furthermore, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.01, § 11 explicitly requires that a judgment reflect whether a victim impact statement was returned to the attorney representing the State.
Application
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals conducted a side-by-side comparison of the sentencing transcript and the written judgment. Finding that the trial court remained silent on the $100 Child Abuse Prevention fine during the sentencing hearing, the court determined the fine was improperly included in the written order. Turning to the clerical errors, the court noted that the record contained all necessary data to rectify the omissions. Although the State did not concede that omitting the statutes was “error” per se, it did not object to reformation. Consequently, the court applied the relevant Penal Code sections (20.04 and 22.021(a)) to the judgments. Regarding the victim impact statement, the record confirmed a statement was provided and considered; thus, the court corrected the judgment’s “no” to a “yes” to ensure the official record accurately documented the victim’s participation in the criminal process.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the $100 fine must be deleted from the written judgment because the trial court’s failure to orally pronounce the fine rendered its inclusion in the written judgment a violation of the defendant’s sentencing rights.
The court further held that it possessed the inherent authority to reform the judgments to include the specific statutory citations for aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault, as these are mandatory elements of a proper judgment under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finally, the court held that the judgment must be modified to accurately reflect that a victim impact statement was returned to the State, as the written judgment’s contrary indication was a clerical error refuted by the record.
Practical Application
This case serves as a tactical reminder for family law litigators who must “crossover” into the criminal record to build a case for family violence or sexual abuse. When a criminal conviction is a central exhibit in a custody or property dispute, you must verify that the judgment is not just a conviction, but an accurate one. If a judgment erroneously states that no victim impact statement was filed, an opposing party in a SAPCR might use that clerical error to minimize the perceived trauma of the child or the non-offending parent. Bonilla confirms that these errors are reformable, providing a basis for a nunc pro tunc motion in the trial court or a modification on appeal.
Checklists
Reviewing Criminal Judgments for SAPCR Evidence
- Verify Oral Consistency: Ensure the written judgment does not include “boilerplate” fines or conditions that were never mentioned at the sentencing hearing.
- Statutory Precision: Check that the judgment cites the exact sub-section of the Penal Code (e.g., Tex. Penal Code § 22.021(a)). This is vital if you are attempting to trigger automatic statutory presumptions against conservatorship.
- Victim Impact Statement Audit: Confirm the “Yes/No” box regarding the victim impact statement is correct. If your client submitted a statement and the judgment says “No,” the record is flawed and should be corrected to preserve the gravity of the victim’s testimony for the family court.
Correcting the Record
- Identify Clerical vs. Judicial Error: Ensure the mistake is one where the record (transcript or PSI) clearly supports the correction.
- Request Reformation: If the case is on appeal, request modification under TRAP 43.2(b); if the trial court still has jurisdiction, move for a judgment nunc pro tunc.
Citation
Bonilla v. State, Nos. 14-24-00705-CR & 14-24-00706-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 3, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In Texas family law, the “record” is often the most powerful weapon. This criminal ruling can be weaponized in a divorce or custody case by ensuring that the “truth” of the criminal proceedings is fully imported into the civil suit. If an abuser’s criminal judgment fails to reflect the victim impact statement, the abuser may argue in family court that the victim’s silence at the time of sentencing suggests the allegations were exaggerated. By using the Bonilla precedent to force a correction of the criminal record, you prevent the opposing party from using clerical oversights as a shield. Accuracy in the criminal judgment ensures that the “findings” of the criminal court carry their maximum weight in your SAPCR trial, particularly when arguing for the “rebuttable presumption” against conservatorship for perpetrators of sexual abuse.
~~f6e3360a-8469-42cd-ae0b-63924aad3ede~~
Share this content:
