Full Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-24-00500-CR Denis Ramirez-Barahona, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE 331ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-DC-23-203069, THE HONORABLE CHANTAL ELDRIDGE, JUDGE PRESIDING OR D ER AN D MEMORAN D U M OPI N I ON PER CURIAM This Court remanded the cause to the trial court on June 10, 2026, for the oral pronouncement of appellant Denis Ramirez-Barahona’s sentences. See Ramirez-Barahona v. State, No. 03-24-00500-CR, 2026 WL 1674102, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin June 10, 2026, order) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). A jury found appellant guilty of sexual assault and prohibited sexual conduct and assessed his punishments at twenty years’ confinement and ten years’ confinement, respectively. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 22.011, 25.02. Although the trial court entered judgments reciting that appellant was sentenced in accordance with the jury’s verdicts, the record showed that the court failed to orally pronounce the sentences in appellant’s presence. In our order, we expressly noted that “reading a punishment verdict is not the same as pronouncing a sentence” and explained that the trial court’s act of reading the verdicts at the original punishment hearing and then remanding appellant into custody “to carry out his sentence” was insufficient to satisfy the pronouncement requirement. See Ramirez-Barahona, 2026 WL 1674102, at *1 & n.1. The trial court seemingly misunderstood the basis for our order, as is evident from its actions at the sentencing hearing on remand. The court informed appellant, “[A]pparently it was determined that I did not read verbatim from the verdicts that were given by the jury, so I’m going to go ahead and review those verdicts,” and once more read the verdicts in appellant’s presence before remanding him into custody. We again stress that reading aloud the jury’s punishment verdicts and remanding appellant into custody does not constitute a pronouncement of sentence. Compare Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 37.04, .06 (requiring that trial court read verdict aloud in defendant’s presence), with id. art. 42.03 (requiring that “sentence shall be pronounced in the defendant’s presence”); see Bradshaw v. State, Nos. 03-24-00091-CR–00093-CR, 2024 WL 3470638, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.— Austin Jan. 19, 2024, order) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (explaining that trial court’s reading jury’s punishment verdicts in open court with defendant present and stating that it would “‘accept the jury’s verdict[s]’ . . . does not qualify as a pronouncement of sentence”); Edic v. State, No. 03-17-00788-CR, 2018 WL 2123465, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin May 8, 2018, order) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (declaring that trial court did not orally pronounce sentences despite reading verdicts aloud, stating that they would be “accepted and entered,” and remanding defendant “to the sheriff’s department for transfer to complete his sentence[s]”); Frias v. State, No. 03-12-00463-CR, 2014 WL 1362639, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 4, 2014, order) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that trial 2 court did not orally pronounce sentence by reading verdict and having defendant remanded “to the custody of the Travis County sheriff’s department for execution of sentence”); see also Ette v. State, 559 S.W.3d 511, 515–16 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (noting that $10,000 fine was not orally pronounced when trial court read jury’s punishment verdict, which included fine). So that we may correct the trial court’s omission and thereby gain jurisdiction over this appeal, see Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Keys v. State, 340 S.W.3d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, order), we once more abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court to orally pronounce appellant’s sentences in his presence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.02 (defining “sentence” as “that part of the judgment . . . “that orders that the punishment be carried into execution in the manner prescribed by law”); see also, e.g., Lemon v. State, --- S.W.3d ---, ---, No. 14-24-00985-CR, 2026 WL 2023457, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 14, 2026, no pet. h.) (giving as example of valid pronouncement language, “It is the order, judgment, and decree of the court that you be taken by the Sheriff . . . [and] held, until transferred to . . . [TCDJ] where you shall be confined for [incarceration period]. Your sentence shall commence today”); Haynes v. State, No. 05-91-00302-CR, 1994 WL 384149, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 21, 1994, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (pronouncement was accomplished when “trial judge stated that he was sentencing appellant to ten years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice”). “Before pronouncing sentence, the defendant shall be asked whether he has anything to say why the sentence should not be pronounced against him.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.07. The new sentencing hearing is to be held within thirty days of the date of this memorandum opinion. A supplemental reporter’s record of the hearing shall be prepared and filed along with a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s new judgments of conviction. 3 These supplemental records are to be filed in this Court within forty-five days of the date of this memorandum opinion. The appeal will be reinstated when the supplemental records are filed. It is so ordered August 7, 2026. Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis Abated and Remanded Filed: August 7, 2026 Do Not Publish 4