### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 161 -CR

Adr ian He r nande z , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-06 -30 0035 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES F . BAI RD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Adrian H erna

ndez appea ls from a district cour t judgment imposing a sente nce of te n y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt o n a c on vi cti on

fo r b ur g lary

of a ha bit a tio n w ithint e nt t o c omm it sexual assault. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 30.02 (West 2003). I n two points of er ror, He rnande z contends that the district c ourt err ed in “n o t en forcing” or dele ting por tions of a pre vious jud g me nt t

hat he c ha

ra c te ri zes a s havin g su sp e nd e d his te n- y e ar se nte nc e and imp os e d “ te n y e a rs ’ community

supervision with the State boot camp prog ram a nd shock probation.” Finding no err or,
we wi ll a ff

ir m th e dis tr ic t c ou

rt ’s jud g me nt.
BACK GR OUND On De c e mbe r 6 , 2 00 6, He rn and e z en te re d a no n- neg ot iated

ple a of g uil ty to t h e o f f e n s e o f b u r g l ar y o f a h a b i t a t i o nw i t h i n t e n tt o c o m m i ts e x u a l a s s au l t , a f i r s t
- d e g r e e f

e l o n y.The re cord r efle cts t h at the State had of fer ed He rnande z a thirty -y ear sentenc e 1 rec ommendation. 2 See id
. After

hear ing e vidence —which included the victim’s te s t i m o n y t h at Her nandez, her 1
ne ig hb or , h a d e nte re d h e r ho me thr ou g h a wi nd owa t ni g ht a

nd c omm itt e d v iol e nt a

nd le wd a c ts in the prese nce of

her thre e y ear -old child—the district court f ound Her nandez g uilty , imposed a ten-y ear sentenc e in the Te x as Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice - Corr ectional Institut ions Division (TDCJ-CI D), but adde d:

Howeve r, the Court fur

ther or d er s t hat the initial 90 day s shall be se rv e d in the sp e c ia l y ou thf ul o ff e nd e rs pr og ra

m kn ow n a s th e State B oo t Camp. Up on

c omp le tio n o f t

hat pr og ra

m th is C ourt

wi ll rec ommend to its successor that the de fe ndant be se nt to the Substance Abuse Fe lony

Punishm ent Facility [S AFPF ] for tre atment and upon succ essful completion of that prog ram that the se ntence be su sp e nd e d and

the de fe nd ant b e pla c e d o n c omm un ity su pe rv isi on in Amarillo.
Two matters to whic h the di strict court alluded in its order are important to note. First, the c ourt’s
re fe re nc e to “ its su c c e sso r” c on te mpl a te d the fa c t that th e jud g e the n p re sid ingov e r t he dis tr ic t c ourt , the Hon. John W isser, would be retiring upon the expiration of his te rm at the end of the month, and would be re place d by

the Hon. Charles B aird. The second matter re lates to the “State B oot Camp.” The c ode of c riminal proce dure pr ovides that trial courts “ma y rec ommend a per son fo r p la c e me nt i n th e state bo ot c a mp p ro g ra m” if the pe rs on

is o the rwi se eli g ibl e fo r c omm un ity
su pe rv isi on , is be tw e e n 1 7- 25 y e ars of a g e , “is ph y sic a lly and me nta lly c a pa ble of pa rt ic ipatin g in
a pr og ra m th a t re qu ir e s str e nu ou s ph y sic a l a c tiv ity ,” and is no t c on vic te d of an of fe ns e punis ha

ble as a state jail felony . Tex. C o d e C ri m . Proc. Ann. a rt. 42.12 § 8(a) (West Supp. 2007). I n case s3

wher e a tr ial court ha s rec ommended for boot camp placement a person convicted of a felony and imposed a sentenc e re quiring imprisonment i n t h e TDCJ -CI D, such a s Herna ndez’s, the cour

t’s jurisdiction is extended until 180 day s afte r t he day the convicted person is receive d into custody by the division. Id . During this pe riod, and afte r the expiration of 75 day s afte r the day the convicte d person is re ceive d into TD CJ -CI D’s custody , “the judge of the court that imposed the sentenc e may suspend furthe r execution of the se ntence imposed and plac e the person on communi ty supervision under the terms and c onditions of this article , if in the opinion of the judg e the pe rson woul d not benef it from further

imprisonment.” Id
. J u d g e W i s s e r ’ s s t a t e m e n t s t h u s c o n t e mp l a t e t h a t( 1 ) H e r n an d e z w o u l d s e r

v e 9 0 d a ys in the boot camp prog ram, (2) his successor , J udg e B aird would have di scre tion to “suspend fur ther execut i o n of the sente nce imposed a nd place the per son on community supervision . . . if in the opinion of the judg e the pe rson would not be nefit from further imprisonment,” and (3) J udg e Wisser would rec ommend to J udg e B aird that he do so and impose, as a co n d ition of Herna

ndez’s community

supervision, that Her

nandez first under g o tr eatment at the Substance Abuse Fe lony Pun ish me nt F a c ili ty . Jud g e Wiss e r o bs e rv e d that “[o]f c ours e , I g ue ss I c an’ t g ua

ra nte e that my
succe ssor will follow my

rec ommendations but I think that this sente nce w ill meet the conce rns of both.” He a dded that if his r ecommendations we re followed, they would result in “an a dditional y ear of i ncar cerat io n” b etw een b oo t ca mp andth e S AFP F.

On J anuar

y 9, 2007, the TDCJ -CI D informed the district c ourt (Judge Ba ir d now presiding ) by

letter that, due to the “sexual nature of the offe nse com m i t t ed , ” Hernandez was

“ ine lig ibl e ” fo r t

he Spe c ia l A lte rn a tiv e to I nc arc e ra tio n Pr og ra

m ( SAI P) (t

he fo rm a l te rm

fo r s ta te4

boot camp). Instead, TDCJ-CI D had place d Her nandez in a

nother unit to beg in serving his sentence
. Her nandez was be nch-w arr anted a nd, on Fe bruar

y 23, the district court he ld a hea ring “to . . . figure out where to go f

rom here .” At the he aring , defe nse counse l argued that TDCJ -CI D had no “leg al rig ht” to ref

use to ac cept He rnande z int o the prog ram a nd asked the district court “to e nforc e J udg e Wisser’s sentenc e.” Counsel ur g ed,

This oppor

tunity has been taken awa y from [Herna

ndez] throug h no fault of his own, he’s done eve ry thing that’ s been a sked of him, and in my opinion it would be like a jury assessing probation in a case and t h en t he probation department say ing no, this per son does not meet our qualifications and theref ore w e should send him to prison.
Howeve r, the district cour t did not believe it had the author ity to order T DCJ -CI D to acc ept He rn and e z int o th e bo ot c a mp p ro g ra m: [I ]t ’s my understandingunder the Separation of Powers Doc trine that wh e n I p u t h im in T D CJ th e n it s li d e s to th e e xe c u ti v e b r anch, and the y have the c on tr oll ing a

uth or ity on wh a t the y wa

nt to do wi th h im i n a number of way s. . . . Ialso think that they have the rig ht under that po we r, the ex ecutiv e br anc h p ow e r, the a uth or ity to e sta bli sh boot camp prog rams that they think a re best, for la ck of a

better w ord, and dec ide who fits in those prog rams and to set up those policies and those regulations and those g uidelines cover ing those prog rams. . . . I ’m no t g oin g to o rd e r T DC J to in fac t put hi m in the bo ot c a mp pr og ra m.
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

the n p ro vid e d H e rn and e z wi th t he fo llo wi ngop tio ns : Now, whe re we go from her e is y ou can ke ep the ten y ear s that J udg e Wisser g ave y ou, y ou can withdraw y our plea, beca use Ithink that we ’v e h ad t his mix up and if y ou want to withdrawy our plea , that’s fine. I f y ou withdraw y our plea, that means that y ou could try y our ca se to a jury , plead not g uilty and try y our case to a jury , or y ou could plead guilty

and g o to a jury for punishment, or you could plead g uil ty and g o to me fo r p un ish me nt.5

Her nandez re sponded, “Your Honor, I wish to stand by

my plea. I made a mistake. I ’m not g oing to withdra

w beingg uilty

beca use I mad e a m i s t ak e.” Howeve r, He rnande z added that he did not “wish to b e i n ca rc er ated a ny longe r” a nd wanted to maintain the te rms of Judge Wisser’s orig inal sentenc e.

A f te r h e ar in g f u rth e r ar g u me n t f

r o m c o u n s e l, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt i n f o r me d H e r n a n d e z,
Fr om where we a

re r ight now w e’r e at a

n imp as se. I

can’ t do any thi ngto a lte r thi s sen te nc e wi tho ut y our r e qu e st. I n o the r w or ds , if y ou filed a motion to withdraw your pl ea , I wo u ld gr ant that beca use I know that y ou had some ty p e of unde rstanding with J udg e Wisser, but short of that, I can’ t do any

t h i n g, s o what I ’m g oing to do today

is go ahea d and sente nce you to ten y ear s i np r i s o n . O k ay?
Th e di st ri ct cou rt

a dd e d, “ [B ]ut I ’m

g oin g to r e mov e fr om t

hat se nte nc e be c a

us e Ic ann ot c omp ly with it w it

h in th e d ic tate s o f

th e T e xa s D e p artm e n t o f Cr im in a l Ju s ti c e I n s ti tuti o n a l D iv is ion the possibilit ies of 90 day s in a State boot cam p fol lowed by the succ essful completion of the SAFPF pr og ram.”

Subsequently , the distri ct court e ntere d an ame nded judg ment of convic tion,
ma int a ini ngthe te n- y e ar s e nte nc e bu t re mov ing the re fe re nc e to state bo ot c a mp a nd SAF PF . T his appea l followed.
AN AL YSI S

I n his first point of error , Her nandez assert s that the district court e rre d by “not enf orcing ” its previous judg ment contem p l at i ng state boot camp followed by community

supervisi o n . Ou r resolution of this issue turns on construction of statutory6

provisions, a questi o n o f l aw we revie w de novo. Se e W ill iam s v . S

tat e , ___ S.W .3d. ____, 2008 Te x. Cr im. Ap p. L EX I S 63 9, at *1 0 (Tex . Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Ce ba llo s v . S tat e , 246 S.W .3d 369, 371 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref ’d). A s t h e c o d e o f c r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r e p l a i n l y s t a t e s , “ A c o u rtm ay recom mend a per son for p la c e me n t in th e s tate b o o t c a mp p r o g r a m” if th e p e r s o n me e ts c e rta in c o n d it io n s . Tex. Code Crim. Proc
. Ann. art. 42.12, § 8(a) (empha sis a dded). The leg islature has deleg ated to the executive br anc h— sp e c if

ic a lly , T DC J-CI D— a

uth or ity to d e te rm ine wh o p art ic ipate s in the pr og ra

m: “The instit utional divisi on shall establish a prog ram to con fi n e persons who are require d to serve not more t h an 1 8 0 day s in the instit utional divisi on as a c ondition of a sentenc e imposed under Section 8, Article 42.12, Code of Criminal Procedure
. T

h e ins tituti onal division may limit the number of persons participating in the program .” Te x . Gov’t Code Ann. § 499.052( a) ( West 2005) (empha sis added). The leg islature has f urther pr ovided:
The in s tituti onal division shall adopt rules of conduc t for per sons particip at i n g in the prog ram unde r this section. I f the institutional division determines that a person is not comply ing w ith the rules or is medically

or psy cholog ically

unsuitable for the prog ram, the division shall end the perso n’s par ticipation in the prog ram a nd reque st the sentencingcourt to re assume custody of the pe rson.
Id . § 499.052(d). F inally , the leg islature has e x pressly provided that a trial court’ s “re commendation that a pe rson be plac ed in the state boot c amp prog ram . . . doe s not give the court the power to hold the Texas D epar tment of Criminal Justi ce or any officer o r e m p l o y ee of the de part ment in contempt of cour t for fa ilure to adhe re to that re commendation.” Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 42.12, § 8(c ).The State also contends that Her nandez failed to pr eser

ve h i s s ep aration-of-powe rs 2 complaint in the district court. We nee d not rea ch this contention. 7 Her nandez ar g ues that TDCJ-CI D had no statutory authority to refuse him admission int o th e bo ot c a mp p ro g ra m on the ba sis of

the “ se xua l natur e of

th e off ens e committ e d” be c a

us e there is no ex plicit mention of such offe nses amongthose that the leg islature has e x cluded f rom b oot-camp eligibility
. Id
. a rt. 4 2
. 1 2 , § 3 g ( We s t S u p p . 2 0 0 7 )
. Si mi la

r ly , H e r n an d e z a s s e rts that TDCJ -CI D violated the c onstitut ional separation-of- power s require ment by imposing a ne w exclusion not found i n the s tatute. We disag ree that TDCJ -CI D’s actions here exceede d the power s that the leg islature has de leg ated to it or exerc i s ed powe rs constitutionally vested in it by

the leg islature. We overrule Her nandez’s first point of er

ror. 2 I n h is s e c o n d

p o in t o f

e r r o r , H e r n an d e z a s s e rts th a t t

h e d is tr ic t c ourt “should have simply

deleted the impossibl e conditions of the se ntence , and lef t the rema ining sentenc e of community supervision intact.” I n making this a rg ument, Her

nandez misconstrues the orig inal judgme nt. The district court d i d n o t sentenc e He rnande z to communi ty supervision. Rather, He rnande z was sentence d to ten y ear s’ imprisonment, with a recommendation that he spend the first 90 day s in state boot camp, whe reupon the district court “ma y suspend furthe r execution of the sentenc e imposed and pla ce [Her nandez] on commu n i t y s u p ervision under the terms and conditions of this article, if in the opinion of the judg e the pe rson would not benefi t from fur ther imprisonment.” Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 42.12, § 8(a ). As it turned out, He rnande z was not
a dmi tt ed in to bo ot c a mp. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt re ta ine d ju

ri sd ic tio n f

or 18 0 d ay s a ft e r t

he date Her nandez was rec eived into TD CJ -CI D’s custody
. Id
. When the hearing was he ld, the district court8

had discre tion to suspend Herna ndez’s sentenc e and pla ce him on community s u p e r v ision if the court was of the opinion that Herna ndez “would not benef

it from further

imprisonment.” Id
. The district court did not do so. On this r ecor d, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s de cision. We overrule Her

nandez’s sec ond point of err or.

CO NC LU SION Havingoverr

uled Her nandez’s points of er

ror, we aff

irm the judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt
.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: August 1, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh