NO. 07-07 -026 2-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A OC TOBER8, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ NAT HAN HUR D, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 28 6 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF HO CK L EY CO UNT Y; NO . 06- 09- 6274; HO NO RA BLE H AR OLD PH ELAN , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Fol low ing a pl ea of not g uil ty , Ap pel lan t, Nat han H u rd , was co nv ic ted b y a j ur y of ag g ra v a t e d a s s a u l tw i t h a n a ffi r ma t i v e fi n d i n g o n u s e o f a d e a d l y w e a p o n . P u nis hment w as a ss e ssed attw o y ears c onfinement. Ap pel lan t present s a tw o- prong ed i ss ue compl ain ing thatthe tr ial j udg e c ommitte d f u n d a mental er ro r, w hic h di d notreq uire an obj ect ion to pr eser

v e er ro r, by

hi s comments to the v eni re panel dur ing v oir di re that , “ [t] he2

Defendanti s not here, i s o ur mai n probl em r ig ht no w . Got any v olu nteers w ants [s ic ] t o s ta nd i n? N o v ol un te ers .” W e affi r m. St at e’s F ailu re t o Fi le A pp ellat e B rief Appel lan t’ s b ri ef w as filed on N ov ember 9, 2007. After

an e xtens ion of ti me w as g ra nted, the Stat e’s br ief w as due o n o r before J anuar y 9, 2008. N otw it hst andi ng the extens ion , t he St ate d id not fav or thi s C our

t w it h a br ief. Rul e 38.8( b) of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re ex pr ess ly g uid es thi s C our

t as to w hat t o do if an ap pel lan t fail s t o f ile a brief ; howev er, the re is no correspo ndin g rule to guide u s w hen the St ate fails to f ile a br ief i n respon se to an appel lan t’ s b ri ef. W henev er the Stat e fail s t o f ile a br ief, an app ellate court should condu ct an indep end ent ana ly sis of the me rits of the a p p e lla nt’s cl aim of error , l imi ted t o the arg uments rais ed attr ial by the Stat e, t o det er mine if there w as er ro r. See Little v

. St ate , 246 S.W .3d 391, 39 8 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2008, no pet .) ( ci ti ng Si ver and v . St ate , 89 S. W .3d 2 16, 2 20 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr isti 2002, no p et.) ). The deci si on to i ndependen tl y rev iew the me ri ts of Appel lan t’ s c ontent ion s s houl d notbe cons tr ue d a s a p p ro v a l o f t h e S t a t e ’ s d e r e l i c t i o n o f i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o fi l e a b r i e f. The Sta te’s failure to f ile a brief , in t h is o r a n y o the r action, m akes th e job of this Court cons ide ra bly

more ti me con sumi ng and difficul t.It is u n cle ar from t he record w hether defense couns el had retur ned from maki ng 1 his phone cal l at t he ti me the comments w ere made i n order to make a n obj ect ion
. 3 Trial J udge’s Comments W it hout Appel lan t bei ng prese n t, t h e c ler k o f the tr ial co urt c all ed th e roll of prospecti v e j urors a nd th e tr ial j udg e admi nis tered th eir oath
. The ju dg e the n i nst ru cte d the v eni re panel on q ual ific ati ons to s er v e as a j uror

and ex empti ons that coul d be cl aimed. After ex cus ing prospec ti v e j urors b ut be fore s eati ng a j ur y , defense couns el ste pped ou t to mak e a p hone c all
. The ju dg e the n c ommented: W ell, w e are going to stan d by just a min ute
. T he Defend antis not here, is our m ain prob lem rig ht no w . G ot any volunte ers wants [sic] to stan d in? No v olun tee rs. After a br ief reces s, Appel lan t w as presentand the p ro ceedi ng s c ommenced. Appel lan t mai ntai ns the t ri al cour t’ s c omments bear

on t he presumpt ion of inn ocenc e or

v it iat e the i mpart ial ity

of the j ur

y . See Jasper

v. Sta te , 61 S.W .3d 4 13, 4 21 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 01). W e disagree. I n a plura lity opinio n, th e Court of

Cri min al App eals hel d tha t a tr ia l ju d ge’ s c omments, “ w hic h tai nted [the defendant’ s] presumpt ion of inn ocenc e i n frontof the v eni re , w ere fund a m e n ta l e rror of cons ti tuti onal di mensi on and required no objection .” See B lue v. Sta te , 41 S.W .3d 1 29, 1 32 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. W e f ir s ta d d re s s A p p e ll a n t ’s co n t e n t io n t h a t n o o bje c t io n wa s n e c e s s a ry t o p re s e rve his co mplai nt. W e may rev iew fundamental er ro r w it hout an obj ect ion
. See Tex . R . Ev id. 14

103( d) ; Jas

per v. Sta te , 61 S.W .3d 4 13, 4 20 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2001). I n c o n cludi ng that comments di d notbear on the defendant ’s presumpt ion of inn ocenc e, t he C our t i n Jas per av oid ed the is sue of w hether an obj ect ion w as neces sar y to preser

v e er ro r. Id. at 42 1. In Gor don v. S tate , 191 S.W .3d 721, 726 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th D is t.] 2006, no p et.) , t he cour t made an int er est ing obser v ati on that if a t ri al jud g e’s “ comments i mpermi ss ibl y tread on a defend ant ’s presum ption of innoce nce, ” then n o objection is nece ssary and the re is er ro r. It f o llo ws th at i f the c omments do notbear on t he defendant’ s p re sumpti on of inn ocenc e, then there is no error reg ardle ss of

w hether an obj ect ion w as made. Id. W it h thi s o bser

v ati on i n mi nd, w e find itunnece ss a ry t o dec ide w hether an o bje cti on w as neces sar

y to pr eser

v e Appe ll ant’ s c omplai nt. Ar ti cl e 38.05 of

the Tex as Code of

Cri minal Proc edure prov ide s in part t hat a tr ial judge shall not“ata ny stage of t he proce edin g previous to the return of the verdict, ma ke any remark ca lc ula ted t o c onv ey

to the j ur

y his opi nio n of t he c ase. See Tex
. C od e C r i m. Proc. Ann. art. 38.05 (V er non 197 9)
. See alsoSi mmons v . St ate, 55 Tex . C ri m. 441, 117 S.W . 141 , 143 ( 1909)
. The tr ial j udg e’s co mm e n ts d id not c onv ey hi s o pin ion or impress ion aboutAppel lan t’s ca se to the j ur y . Theydi d noti mpartto the j ur y any infor mati on i ntended to tai nt t he presumpt ion of inn ocenc e or v it iat e the i mpart ial ity

of the jur y . W e conc lud e that the comments , alt houg h i ll -a dv is ed, d id not r is e to the l ev el of the comments req uir ing rev ersal as i n Blue , 41 S.W .3d a t 132 ( jud g e’s co mments that impar ted t o j ur

y that the defendant had s er iou sl y co nsi dered ent er ing i nto a pl ea ag re ement t ain ted t he presumpt ion of inn ocenc e)
. Appel lan t’ s i ss ue i s o v er ru led
.5

Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Do not p ubl is h.