In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-25-00059-CR

QUINCEY G. PARKER, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 485th District Court Tarrant County, Texas1 Trial Court No. 1846907, Honorable Steve Jumes, Presiding December 15, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Quincey G. Parker, appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, a third-degree felony.2 He was

ANALYSIS

This Court has the power to modify an incorrect judgment when we have the necessary information to do so. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (en banc). The power to reform a judgment is “not dependent upon the request of any party, nor does it turn on the question of whether a party has or has not objected in the trial court.” See Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).

Issue One – Statute of Offense

In this case, Appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm away from the premises where Appellant lived after he was convicted of a felony and after the fifth anniversary of his release from confinement, community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 46.04(a)(2). However, the judgment incorrectly states that Appellant was convicted under section 46.04(e). The indictment, court’s charge, and jury verdict provide this Court with sufficient facts in the record to permit this Court to correct the judgment to reflect the statute of the offense of conviction

Issue Two – Court Costs

After pronouncing Appellant’s sentence, the trial court stated, “I will also zero out any fees or court costs on the basis of time that you have already served.” However, the judgment reflects a special finding that court costs of $290.00 and reimbursement fees of $60.00 will run concurrent with the sentence. Further, the bill of costs shows that Appellant owes no court costs but that he owes $60.00 of reimbursement fees. “[W]hen there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” Burt v. State, 445 S.W.3d 752, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

As a result of the pronouncement, the judgment is modified to delete the finding that court costs and reimbursement fees will run concurrent with the sentence. The bill of costs is modified to delete “Total Reimbursement Fees $60.00” and Appellant’s balance is $0.00.

We sustain Appellant’s second issue.

CONCLUSION

Having sustained Appellant’s issues, we modify the judgment and bill of costs as set forth herein. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

Judy C. Parker Justice Do not publish.