his first plea, but which was supported by affidavit. At the hearing conducted that day, appellant’s counsel stated that the court had already denied the initial motion for double jeopardy, but that he was presenting the second motion only to perfect the record. The record indicates that the court denied this second plea. The State contends, and we agree, that the trial court’s granting of the original plea was simply a clerical error. We recognize that, generally speaking, written findings control over oral announcements. See Eubanks v. State, 599 S.W.2d 815, 817 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). However, every piece of evidence in the record indicates that the oral pronouncement was the correct manifestation of the court’s intention. See Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328-29 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). The record of the hearing on Galvan’s double
holding that where there is a discrepancy between the written sentence and the oral pronouncement of sentence the latter prevails holding that courts written sentence must conform to oral pronouncement holding that when there is a variation between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written memorialization of the sentence the oral pronouncement controls holding that a trial courts changing of the written sentence to conform with the oral pronouncement of sentence is ministerial holding that written judgment controlled over oral pronouncement