Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hongpathoum v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth

June 6, 2019

Michael Hongpathoum, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas

          On Appeal from the 371st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 1321486D, 1321487D, 1321493D

          Before Gabriel, Kerr, and Pittman, JJ.

          OPINION

          Elizabeth Kerr, Justice.

         In 2013, the trial court placed Michael Hongpathoum on seven years of deferred-adjudication community supervision[1] for two offenses and five years for a third:

• delivery of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) of one gram or more but less than four grams. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(c).
• forgery by possession of a forged writing, to-wit: money. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(e).
• theft of a firearm. Id. § 31.03(e)(4)(C).

         Following a 2017 arrest during which Hongpathoum was found with a stolen gun, the trial court adjudicated him guilty of each earlier offense and sentenced him to twenty, ten, and two years' confinement respectively.

         In a single brief, Hongpathoum asserts four points:

(1) for all three cases, he contends that he is entitled to a new punishment hearing because the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress and considered a handgun recovered during an illegal search;
(2) in the theft-of-a-firearm case, he argues that the $995 ordered in reparations "due to CSCD" has no basis in the record and should thus be deleted from the judgment;
(3) in the delivery-of-a-controlled-substance case, he maintains that the $1, 520 ordered in reparations for unpaid probation fees is unwarranted and should be struck from the judgment; and
(4) the $700 fine levied against him in the delivery-of-a-controlled-substance case is improper because the trial court did not assess a fine when pronouncing sentence after his adjudication.

         We overrule Hongpathoum's first, third, and fourth points but sustain his second point. We thus delete the $995 reparations award from the theft-of-a-firearm judgment and affirm it as modified. We affirm the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.