You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


      TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN


                                       NO. 03-03-00214-CR



                                Steven William Hough, Appellant

                                                  v.

                                   The State of Texas, Appellee




             FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7, TRAVIS COUNTY
           NO. 614382, HONORABLE ELISABETH A. EARLE, JUDGE PRESIDING



                             MEMORANDUM OPINION


               Steven William Hough appeals his conviction of driving while intoxicated. See Tex.

Pen. Code Ann. § 49.04 (West 2003). He argues that the county court at law, in a bench trial below,

erred by: (1) failing to order a pre-sentence investigation report before assessing punishment; (2)

refusing to allow appellant to testify about his medical condition, based on his own experiences; and

(3) vindictively sentencing appellant to jail for refusing to accept the plea-bargain offer made by the

State. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.


                                         BACKGROUND

               Appellant was stopped by Pflugerville police officer David Jester for failing to signal

a turn at about 2:30 in the morning on June 15, 2002. After approaching the vehicle, Jester noticed

a strong odor of alcoholic beverages coming from inside the truck. When appellant stepped out of
the vehicle, Jester smelled the same strong odor of alcohol coming from appellant and noticed

appellant’s red, glazed eyes and slurred speech. Appellant’s manner was aggressive, and he made

threats toward the police officer. Due to the odor of alcohol and appellant’s demeanor and

appearance, Jester asked appellant to perform a field sobriety test. Appellant failed the field sobriety

test and was arrested by Officer Jester. A search of appellant’s car later revealed several bottles of

prescription medication, such as Tylenol 3 and hydrocodone. In a bench trial, appellant was

convicted of driving while intoxicated and sentenced to 90 days in jail.


                                           DISCUSSION

               In his first point of error, appellant argues that the trial court failed to order a pre-

sentence investigation (PSI) report, justifying a reversal by this court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

art. 42.12 §§ 9(a), (b), (h) (West Supp. 2004). The code of criminal procedure states in pertinent

part:


        (a) [B]efore the imposition of sentence by a judge in a misdemeanor case the judge
            shall direct a supervision officer to report to the judge in writing on the
            circumstances of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the amount
            of restitution necessary to adequately compensate a victim of the offense, the
            criminal and social history of the defendant, and any other information relating
            to the defendant or the offense requested by the judge.

        (b) The judge is not required to direct a supervision officer to prepare a report in a
            misdemeanor case if:

            (1) the defendant requests that a report not be made and the judge agrees to the
                request; or

            (2) the judge finds that there is sufficient information in the record to permit
                the meaningful exercise of sentencing discretion and the judge explains this
                finding on the record.

                                                   2
             ****

        (h) On a determination by the judge that alcohol or drug abuse may have contributed
            to the offense. . .the judge shall direct a supervision officer approved by the
            community supervision and corrections department or the judge or a person,
            program, or other agency approved by the Texas Commission on Alcohol and
            Drug Abuse, to conduct an evaluation to determine the appropriateness of, and
            a course of conduct necessary for, alcohol or drug rehabilitation for a defendant
            and to report that evaluation to the judge. The evaluation shall be made. . .(2)
            after conviction and before sentencing, if the judge assesses punishment in the
            case.


Id. §§ 9(a), (b), and (h).

                Appellant is correct in stating that the provisions of section 9(a) and (h) are

mandatory. See Wright v. State, 873 S.W.2d 77, 80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, pet. ref’d). However,

the right to have a trial court order the preparation of a PSI report is subject to the Texas law of

procedural default and is, therefore, forfeitable by inaction. Id. at 83. Appellant failed to object to

the court’s failure to prepare a PSI report or request that the court do so and therefore waived his

right to the use of the report or to complain of its non-existence on appeal. See id. at 83; Holloman

v. State, 942 S.W.2d 775, 776 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1997, no pet.); Matthews v. State, 803 S.W.2d

347, 350 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.). Therefore, he failed to preserve his

complaint for review. We overrule his first issue.

                In his second issue, appellant argues that the trial court incorrectly refused to allow

him to testify about his medical condition.        Defense counsel asked appellant during direct

examination, “Do you have a problem with blood sugar?” The State objected to the question, and

the trial court sustained the objection. When a trial court excludes evidence, the proponent must



                                                  3
preserve the evidence in the record in order to complain on appeal of its exclusion. Tex. R. Evid.

103 (a)(2); Roise v. State, 7 S.W.3d 225, 240 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. ref’d); Porter v. Nemir,

900 S.W.2d 376, 383 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no pet.). Appellant made no offer of proof and

therefore waived any complaint about the exclusion on appeal. Id. We overrule appellant’s second

issue.

               In his final issue, appellant argues that the trial court’s sentence of ninety days in jail

amounts to both prosecutorial and judicial vindictiveness. See Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 25-

29 (1974). Appellant claims that the trial court’s imposition of a jail sentence when the State had

made a pretrial recommendation of probation was retaliation for exercising his right to a trial.

Before trial, the State’s recommendation had been 120 days confinement and a $2,000 fine, probated

for eighteen months, with suspension of appellant’s driver’s license for one year and three days in

jail as a condition of probation. During the trial, the judge called a short recess and met with both

attorneys regarding the terms of the plea bargain. After the meeting, the judge called appellant to

the bench, explained the terms of the plea-bargain offer, and asked appellant if he would accept the

deal. Appellant refused the plea-bargain offer. After the trial, the prosecution recommended 120

days in jail, a $500 fine, and court costs. The trial court sentenced appellant to ninety days in jail

plus court costs.

               The imposition of a penalty upon a defendant for having successfully pursued a

statutory right of appeal or collateral remedy would be a violation of due process of law. Blackledge,

417 U.S. at 25. However, this case does not involve a successful appeal and reconviction. See id.

Instead, appellant declined to accept a plea offer by the State. When the State offers a plea bargain



                                                   4
and the defendant refuses the offer, the State is not bound by the refused offer. Irving v. State, 475

S.W.2d 777, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). Additionally, we note that the maximum punishment for

a first-time offense of driving while intoxicated, a Class B misdemeanor, is a $2,000 fine and 180

days in jail. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 12.22, 49.04 (West 2003). Appellant’s sentence of ninety days

in jail was well below the maximum sentence available to the trial court. Furthermore, the State

cited appellant’s threats to the arresting officer and his consumption of hydrocodone, a prescription

narcotic, and alcohol on the night of his arrest as aggravating factors which merited a ninety-day

sentence. Contrary to appellant’s claims, the trial court imposed its sentence within the boundaries

established by statute and, at the same time, attempted to ensure that he receive drug and alcohol

counseling. Appellant’s claim of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct is without merit. We

overrule appellant’s final issue.


                                          CONCLUSION

               Because we overrule all of appellant’s issues, we affirm the judgment of conviction.




                                               W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed: January 8, 2004

Do Not Publish



                                                  5