stating, in concurring opinion by Judge Cochran, that “both trial and appellate courts may always take cognizance of an illegal or unauthorized sentence”
How later courts described this case
- stating, in concurring opinion by Judge Cochran, that “both trial and appellate courts may always take cognizance of an illegal or unauthorized sentence”
- stating, in concurring opinion by Judge Cochran, that A both trial and appellate courts may always take cognizance of an illegal or unauthorized sentence @
- holding that a trial court retains jurisdiction to vacate, modify, or amend its own rulings within its plenary power
- noting that the oral sentence announced in open court is the sentence imposed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION
The opinion was delivered
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine and sentenced to twelve years in prison. Twenty days after his conviction and sentencing, the trial judge modified McClinton’s sentence to ten years in prison. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 1
We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to address whether a trial court has the power to reform a defendant’s sentence after the defendant has already begun serving the sentence. We have determined that our decision to grant *769 review was improvident. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
COCHRAN, J., filed a concurring opinion.
HERVEY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which JOHNSON, J., joined.
. McClinton v. State, 38 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001).