JONATHAN PAUL DESOTO v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 24th District Court of Calhoun County

Annotate this Case

NUMBER 13-04-025-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

 JONATHAN PAUL DESOTO, Appellant,

v.

 THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of Calhoun County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

 

On December 4, 2003, appellant, Jonathan Paul DeSoto, was sentenced to forty years imprisonment for aggravated robbery and ten years imprisonment for aggravated assault. The sentences were to run consecutively. In his sole point of error, appellant contends that the trial court=s pronouncement of the cumulative sentences was not sufficiently specific, and therefore the sentences should run concurrently. We affirm.

It is well settled that where sentences are pronounced on the same day in the same court, a reference of one to the other by cause number only is sufficient to effect cumulation of the sentences. See Jackson v. State, 449 S.W.2d 242, 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Ex Parte Lewis, 414 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967); Ex Parte Ogletree, 328 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1959). Therefore, the order of cumulation in this case, being made in the same court, entered on the same day as the sentence to which it is made cumulative, and referring to the cause number of such sentence, is deemed sufficient. Jackson, 449 S.W.2d at 244 (citingEx parte March, 423 S.W.2d 916, 916 (1968)). Appellant=s sole point of error is overruled.

Accordingly the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P.47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 7th day of July, 2005.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.