MAJORITY OPINION A jury convicted appellant Julio Hernandez-Faced of murdering the complainant, Roberto Bermudez. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.02. The trial court sentenced appellant to life in prison and a $10,000 fine. Appellant appeals his conviction in two issues. In his first issue appellant argues the trial court improperly limited his voir dire. We overrule appellant’s first issue because he has not established that the trial court abused its discretion when it restricted his voir dire. In his second issue appellant asserts the trial court waived all costs and fines by allegedly applying jail time served “toward incarceration, fine, and costs” in the judgment of conviction. We overrule appellant’s second issue because he has not demonstrated that the trial court intentionally waived all costs and fines through this notation. We modify the trial court’s judgment of conviction to reflect the $10,000 fine assessed during the oral sentencing hearing and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. BACKGROUND[1] The complainant, Roberto Bermudez, and his family went to his mother-in-law’s home to help her repair a sink. The complainant and his wife were working on the sink when appellant entered the home and encountered the complainant’s mother-in-law. The mother-in-law asked appellant “what are you doing here?” The complainant and his wife stopped working on the sink and moved toward where appellant was walking around the house. Appellant approached the complainant and asked him: “do you want to kill Luis?”[2] The complainant asked appellant “What are you talking about?” While the complainant was talking to appellant, appellant pulled a gun out of his waistband and, after a brief struggle over the gun, shot the complainant to death. The struggle resumed as Luis joined the fight, preventing appellant from escaping. The fight was finally stopped by arriving firefighters. Appellant was arrested when police arrived at the scene. Appellant was indicted for murder. Appellant’s case was eventually called for a jury trial. During voir dire the trial judge instructed the venire panel that the State was required to prove each element of the charged offense. The trial judge continued that the burden of proof never shifts to the defendant. The trial judge also stated that the defendant “is presumed to be innocent unless guilt is established by legal evidence received before the jury in this case beyond a reasonable doubt.” The judge informed the venire panel that the State was not required to prove its case “beyond all possible doubt.” The judge then explained that there is no legal definition for the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof. The judge compared the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to the burdens of proof used in civil trials, stating that “the highest standard that we have in our Court system is beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial judge continued that even though there is no legal definition for beyond a reasonable doubt, “jury members don’t get to make up a definition. What it means is what the words mean, beyond a reasonable doubt. The common usage of those words, the common definition of those words, that’s what it means. It means simply a doubt based on reason.” The trial judge then asked the venire panel as a whole: If you are selected to serve on this jury, can you follow the law? Can you take an oath to follow the law that you will not return a verdict of guilty unless the State has met its burden and – - beyond a reasonable doubt? If you cannot hold the State to that standard, please raise your hand. All right. Thank you. The prosecution also discussed the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof during its portion of the voir dire. The prosecutor informed the venire panel that the State must prove its case against appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor continued that “beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden – - it’s a burden that we gladly accept, and we meet that burden in this courthouse every day. It’s not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. It’s not proof beyond all doubt. It’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” The prosecutor then asked two potential jurors individually about their interpretation of two PowerPoint slides with different amounts of puzzle pieces. The first potential juror could not tell what picture the pieces formed. The second, however, could tell the picture shown in the puzzle beyond a reasonable doubt, even though some pieces were missing. The prosecutor used that example to explain the difference between beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond all doubt. The prosecutor then asked “who’s going to raise my burden? Who’s going to say, ‘[i]f you don’t prove this case beyond all doubt, I cannot convict him of murder.’” She then went row by row asking their responses to that question. The record does not indicate whether any members of the venire panel responded affirmatively to the question. Finally, the prosecutor discussed defenses and she reiterated that the burden of proof always remained with the State and that the State was required to prove its case against appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant’s defense counsel then had an opportunity to question the venire panel. He began by stating that the good thing about going last is that a lot of the topics have already been covered either by the Judge or by the State in the voir dire. I have a lot of similar questions, maybe worded a little differently. I might want to touch on some of the same subject matter that’s already been talked about, but just bear with me. Appellant’s counsel continued that there are two general principles governing every criminal case. After covering the first principle, the presumption of innocence, he began discussing the second, the State’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant’s counsel then asked the venire panel whether they all agreed with this principle. At least one potential juror answered “yes.” Appellant’s counsel continued by asking the venire panel if “anybody [has] a problem with – - with those? So far, nothing? Okay.” Appellant’s counsel then revisited the State’s beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof while discussing the requirement that the State prove the offense was committed either intentionally or knowingly beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant’s counsel then asked the panel generally if they understood. At least one member of the panel answered “yes.” Appellant’s counsel then followed up by asking if “[a]nybody [was] confused? Nobody? Okay.” Appellant’s counsel, after observing that “the State [had] talked about this already[,]” asked the venire panel what elements had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He then told the venire panel that every element of the charged crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant’s counsel then reiterated that the defense has no burden, that “ all of the responsibility to prove whether this happened or not, whether the offense was committed is entirely on the State of Texas.” This segued to rhetorically asking “so, what is the burden on the State of Texas? We’ve discussed beyond a reasonable doubt. The State put on that puzzle that they put on up there. So, to help you understand it other than the puzzle, which is a really good example, okay, I have a chart here.” The chart depicted Texas’s different burdens of proof and, while describing them, appellant’s counsel paused to ask if “[e]verybody follow[ed] that?” After acknowledging the State’s prior point that the jurors were not eyewitnesses, appellant’s counsel stated that “somewhere below eyewitness is going to be you, the juror. And you got to consider whether the State has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Where does that fall on this graph here? Well, it is somewhere below being an eyewitness. There’s no set definition the State of Texas has. They pretty much leave it up to you.” Appellant’s counsel then contrasted the preponderance and clear-and-convincing evidentiary standards with the chart’s depiction of beyond a reasonable doubt, which he stated is somewhere above clear and convincing, “somewhere in this range, then up at the very top, near the very top is beyond a reasonable doubt. Can everybody see that? Can everybody follow the different burdens of proof that we have?” Appellant’s counsel then reiterated that the State’s burden of proof was beyond a reasonable doubt, a very high burden, “because a person’s liberty interest is at stake.” Appellant’s counsel then discussed with the venire panel the meaning of “guilty” and “not guilty.” While appellant’s counsel stated that “guilty” meant “the State proved all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt[,]” he asked what “ not guilty” meant. When a potential juror defined “not guilty” as “[t]hey didn’t prove one or more” elements, appellant’s counsel stated “exactly.” He then explained “that the State didn’t prove one or more of the elements of the offense. That they – - they didn’t prove it. They didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.” He then asked “how many people are going to have a problem with that?” One potential juror responded positively. At this point, appellant’s counsel said he was winding down his voir dire but then announced he was going to ask some more questions. Appellant’s counsel: I’m going to go by row and ask you to give me a number between one and seven. Okay? I’m going to ask you a question and you’re going to give me a number between one and seven. One means you strongly agree with my statement, and seven means you strongly disagree with my statement. You could fall somewhere in the middle, two, three, four, five, six. Okay? One and seven are the two extreme ones. Okay. For the first row, how would you answer this question, “I would not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict”? Juror No. 1?
