In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-12-00088-CR ____________________ ARTISHA PEARSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 11-10999 ________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Artisha Pearson pleaded guilty, under a plea agreement, to aggravated assault. The trial court placed her on deferred adjudication community supervision.

She violated the terms and conditions of community supervision set by the court.

The State filed a motion to revoke. The trial court revoked the community supervision, found her guilty of aggravated assault, and sentenced her to ten years in prison. Pearson argues the trial court abused its discretion by assessing a $250 fine against her in the written judgment adjudicating guilt when there was no pronouncement of the fine in the oral rendition of judgment at the revocation and adjudication hearing; the trial court committed reversible error in including the fine that was not supported by the evidence; and the trial court committed reversible error in including the fine as an administrative fee without orally pronouncing the fine. See Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The State concedes error, and “recommends modification of the Judgment to reduce the amount of administrative fees by subtracting the $250.00 fine amount.”

The trial court sentenced Pearson to ten years in prison and did not orally assess a fine. The first page of the written judgment reflects the defendant’s punishment as ten years in prison, with no amount indicated in the fine column, and $952 in administrative fees. The second page of the judgment notes a fine of $250; the $250 fine was included in the administrative fees assessed in the judgment. To the extent there is a variance between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Id. at 500-02 (affirming court of appeal’s modification of judgment to remove fine assessed in the written judgment, but not orally pronounced); Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). We modify the written judgment to decrease the amount of the administrative fees on the first page by

$250 and to delete the reference to the $250 fine on the second page. The judgment is affirmed as modified.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on May 14, 2013 Opinion Delivered May 22, 2013 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.