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Do not publish.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.