1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO S. 2- 07- 244- CR 2- 07- 245- CR 2- 07- 246- CR 2- 07- 247- CR 2- 07- 248- CR 2- 07- 249- CR GR E GOR Y W AY NE B R I S COE AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 1 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on I n t w o poi nt s, A ppe l l ant G r ego ry W ayn e Br i sc oe app ea l s hi s con vi ct i ons f orag gr ava t ed r obbe ry w i t h a dea dl y w ea pon, r obbe ry byt hr ea t s, an d e vad i ng
a rre s t. W e a ffir m .2 II . F a c tu a la n d P ro c e d u ra lH i s to ry O n A pr i l 13 , 20 04 , Br i scoe w ent on a cr i m e spr ee. H e r obb ed em pl oyees oft w o s t or es and t he ow ner of one oft he st or es , w hom heen cou nt er ed ashe l eftt he scene. Br i scoe dr ove aw ay and at t em pt ed t o el ude an al ert ed pol i ce of f i cerby w eavi ng t hr oug h t r a ffi c— hi s carcol l i ded head

- on w i t h another veh i cl e, an d heco nt i nue d t o t ry t o e vad e t he of f i ce r by f l ee i ng on f oot . Soon aft er w ar d, hebr okei n to t he hous e o fan el der l y w om an, t hr ea t ene d he r , an d st ol e m one y a n d c a r k e ysf r om he rpur se . W hen Br i sc oe w enti nt o t he bat hr oom , t he w om an r an t o t he f r ont por ch and scr eam ed f orhel p. A pol i ce of f i ceron t he st r eetr espond ed t o herscream s and pur sued B r i scoe, w ho r an f r om t he r esi dence. Th e pol i ce subsequentl y caugh tand ar r est ed B r i scoe. Br i sc oe ent er ed op en pl ea s of“ gui l t y”t o s i x of f ens es : ( 1) oneco untof
a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e ry wi t h a d e a d l y we a p o n ; ( 2 ) f o u r c o u n t s o f r o b b e ryby t hr ea t s; an d (3 ) oneco untofev adi ng a r r es t . He al so pl ea ded “ t r ue”t o t he rep e a t- o ffen d e r no ti c e s i n the ag g rav a ted -r o b b e ry a n d rob b e ry-b y -t h rea ts cha r ges . The t r i alco urts ubs equ ent l y f ound Br i sc oe gui l t y on al l cha r gesan d f ound t he r epe at - of f end ernot i ce s t o be t r ue. Fol l ow i ng a puni sh m enthe ar i ng, t he t r i al co urtas se ss ed Br i sc oe’ s puni sh m ent atl i f e i m pr i so nm entf orea ch of t he r ob be ry c ha r ge s a nd t he a gg r a va t e d- r ob be ry c ha r ge , a nd i t a s s e s s e d tw o3

year s f orevadi ng ar r est , w i t h a llsent ences t o r un con cur r ent l y. Thi s appeal f ol l ow ed. I I I . Fai l ur e t o A dm oni sh In h is f ir s tp o in t , B r is c o e a r g u e st h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtf a ile d t o a d m o n is h h im
ast o t he r ang e o fpuni sh m ent a tta c h e d t o e ac h c har ge and i t s r es pec t i ve enhan cem ent , t hus r ender i ng i nvol untary hi s pl eas of“gui l t y” and “t r ue. ” A . Standar d ofRev i ew The v ol unt ar i nes s ofa gui l t y pl ea i s det er m i ned by t he t ot al i t y oft he
c i rc u m s ta n c e sa sv i e w e d i n l i g h t o f th e e n ti re re c o rd . D u cker v. S tate , 45 S . W . 3 d 7 9 1 , 7 9 6 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.); Ed wa rdsv. S tate , 921 S .W .2 d 4 7 7 , 4 7 9 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s t o n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 9 6 , n o p e t.) . B e fo re
a c c e p ti ng a de f end ant ’ s gui l t y pl ea , a t r i alco urti s r equ i r ed t o a dm oni sh t he d e fe n d a n ta sto , in ter a lia , t he r ange of pun i shm entatt ached t o t he of f ense. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 2 6 .1 3 (a )(1 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ). Atri a l c o u rt
m a ym a k e th e re q u i re d a d m o n i ti o n s e i th e r o ra l l yo r i n w ri ti n g . Id. a rt. 2 6 .1 3 (d ). I ft he adm oni t i onsar e m adei n w r i t i ng, t hen t he cou rt m us t r ec ei ve a s t at em ent si gne d b yt h e d e f e n d a n ta n d t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ sa t t o r n e yt h a tt h e d e f e n dan t
u n d e rs ta n d sth e a d m o n i ti o n sa n d i sa w a re o f th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h i s p l e a . Id. O ncet he def end antan d hi s att or ney hav e si gne d w r i t t en adm oni t i onsan d t he j udgeha s es t abl i sh ed t hatt he def end antha s r ea d a nd un der st ood t he4

adm oni t i ons, t he j udg e i s not r equi r ed t o or al l y i nqu i r e about t he vol untar i ness
o f th e d e fe n d a n t’sp l e a . Edwards , 9 2 1 S .W .2 d a t 4 7 9 ; Penav. Sta te , 132 S .W .3 d 6 6 3 , 6 6 8 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u sC h ri s ti 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.). W h e n th e re c o rd
s h o w s t h a tt h e d e f e n d a n tre c e iv e d a n a d m o n it io n o n p u n is h m e n t , it is a p r im a fac i e sh o w i n g th a t th e p l e a w a s k n o w i n g an d v o l u n tary , a n d the b u rde n sh i fts t o t he def end antt o s how t hatheen t er e d h i s pl ea w i t houtunde r st and i ng t he
c o n s e q u e n c e s . A rre o l a v. S tate , 207 S. W . 3d 387, 391 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.); Edwards , 921 S. W . 2d at481– 82. I ft he def end ant hass t at ed t hat he unde r st and s t he nat ur e of hi s pl ea and t hat i tw asvol unt ary, t hen heha s a “h ea vy bur den ” t o pr oveon a ppe alt hathi s pl eaw asi nvol unt ary. A c o stav. S tate , 1 6 0 S .W .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 1 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.); A r re o la , 207 S. W . 3d a t391. B . A n a ly s is In a r g u in g t h a th is g u ilt y p le a s w e r e in v o lu n t a ry , B r is c o ef o c u s e so n h is
or al st at em ent s dur in g th e sent enci ng hear i ng. Br i scoe ar gues t hatt hose st at em ent s sh ow t hathew asco nf us ed as t o t he r ang e o fpuni sh m entatt he t i me t h a t h e e n t e r e d h i s p l e a s a n d t h a t h e wa n t e d t o wi t h d r a w h i spl ea s and acceptt he S t at e’ s ear l i erpl ea- bar gai n of f er . B ri scoe f ai l s t o acknow l edge, how eve r , t hatt he r ec or d c l ea r l y r ef l ec t s t hat t he t r i al cou rt com pl i ed w i t h t he st at ut or y r equi r em ent s r egar di ng w r i t t en adm oni t i ons.5

The t ri a l co urtad m oni sh ed Br i sc oe i n w r i t i ng oft he app l i ca bl e r ang e o f p u n is h m e n tf o re a c h c h a r g e d o f f e n s e . F o re a c h c h a r g e , B r is c o e a n d h is
a tto rn e yb o th s i g n e d a d o c u m e n t ti tl e d “ W ri tte n P l e a A d m o n i s h m e n ts .” Par agr aph 3 of ea ch doc um ent st at es , “ I fco nvi ct ed oft he abo ve of f ens e, you f ac e t he f ol l ow i ng r ang e o f p u n i s h m e n t . . . . ” Fort he cha r gesofr obbe ry by th rea ts, ea c h o f th e se d o c u m e n ts h a s a n “X ” n e x t t o the foll o w i n g sta tem e n t:

“ SECON D D EGREEF EL O NY E NH AN CED: L i f e o r a ny t e r m of no tm or e t ha n 99 yea r s orl es s t han 5 yea r s i n t he I ns t i t ut i ona l D i vi si on oft he Texa s D epa rt m ent ofCr i m i nal Jus t i ce ; and i n add i t i on, a f i ne not t o exc ee d $10 , 000 m ay al so be
a s s e s s e d . ” F o rt he ch a r g e o fa g g r a v a t e d r o b b e ry , t h e d o c u me n th a sa n “ X”
nextt o t he f ol l ow i ng st at em ent : “F I RST D EG REE FEL O N Y EN H A N C ED : Li f e o r any t er m ofnotm or e t han 9 9 y e a rs o r l ess t han 1 5 yearsi n t he I nst i t ut i onal D i vi si on of t he Texa s D epa rt m ent of C r i m i nal Jus t i ce ; and i n add i t i on, a f i ne not to ex c e e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 m a y a l so b e a ss e ss e d .” F o r t h e ch a rge o f ev a d i n g arres t, th e d o c u m e n t h a sa n “ X ” n e x t t o th e fo ll o w in g s ta te m e n t : “ S T A T E J A IL F E L O N Y : A t e r m o fn o tle s st h a n 1 8 0 d a y so rm o r e t h a n 2 y e a r sin a s t a t e ja il; and i n addi t i on, a f i ne not t o exceed $ 10 , 00 0 m ay al so be asses sed. ” O n a l l s i x oft hes e d ocu m ent s, Br i sc oe si gne d a “ W r i t t en W ai v e rof D e fen d a n t– J o i n e d B yA ttorn e y .” A m o n g th e sta tem e n ts i n the se d o c u m e n ts
ar e t he f ol l ow i ng: ( 1) “ I [ t he def end ant ] f ul l y u n der st and ea ch oft he abo ve2 ... N ot abl y, on e ac h o f th es e s i x do cum ent s, a st at em entt hatBr i sc oe

“w ai ve[ s] pr epar at i on of a pr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r eport ” has been m ar ked out , an d bot h Br i sc oe’ s i ni t i al s and hi s att or ney ’ s i ni t i al s app ea rne xtt o t he m a rk e d -o u t s ta te m e n t. 6 w r i t t e n pl e a a dm on i s hm e nt sg i ve n byt he Cou rt a nd I h a ven o qu e s t i on s ” ; ( 2) “I am aw ar e o ft he con se que nce s ofm y pl ea ”; ( 3) “ I am m e n ta l l y c om pet ent and m y pl ea i s kno w i ngl y, f r ee l y, an d vo l unt ar i l y e nt er ed” ; a n d (4 ) “I gi ve up
a n d w a i v e m yri g h t t o a j u ry, b o th as to m yg u i l t an d as se ss m e n t of m y p u n is h m e n t .” I m m e d ia t e lyb e lo w B r is c o e ’s s ig n a t u r e o n e a c h d o c u m e n t , h is
a ttorn e ysi g n e d the foll o w i n g sta tem e n t: I h a v e fu l l yre v i e w e d a n d e x p l a i n e d th e a b o v e a n d fo re g o i n g c o u rt adm oni sh m ent s, r i ght s, an d w ai ver s, asw el l a s t he f ol l ow i ng j udi ci alco nf es si on t o t he D ef end ant . I am s at i sf i ed t hatt he D e fenda nti s l ega l l y c om pet entan d ha s i nt el l i gen t l y, kn ow i ngl y, a n d vol untar i l y w ai ved hi s r i ghtsand w i l l ent era gui l t y pl ea u n d e rstan d i n g the co n se q u e n c e s th e reo f. Fi nal l y, on each do cum ent , Br i scoe, hi s att or ney, and t he t r i al courtal l si gned
a s t at em entt ha t i n c l u dest he f ol l ow i ng: “ The Courtha s gi ven t he D ef end ant th e a d m o n is h m e n ts s e t o u t in p a ra g ra p h s n u m b e re d 1 th ro u g h 1 5 , a b o v e . In
a d d it io n , t h e C o u rtf in d st h a tt h e D e f e n d a n tis m e n t a lly c o m p e t e n t a n d t h a th is p l e a i s i n te l l i g e n tl y , fre e l ya n d v o l u n ta ri l ye n te re d .” 2 St at em ent s m adeby bot h Br i sc oe and hi s att or neyat th e pl ea he ar i ng al so i ndi ca t e t hat Br i sc oe w as aw ar e of t he r ang e o fpuni sh m entt hathem i ght7

r ecei ve. A ccor di ng t o t he t r anscr ip t oft he hear i ng, t he S t at e had of f er ed Bri scoe a pl ea bar gai n of f ort y- f i ve year s’ conf i nem ent , and B r i scoe’ s att or ney had con vi nced t he S t at e t o r educe t he of f er t o t hi rt y- t hr ee year s. N evert hel ess, Bri scoe r ej ect ed t he pl ea bar gai n and pl eaded “gui l t y” t o each char ge and “t r ue” t o t he r epe at - of f end ernot i ce s. Br i sc oe’ s att or ney st at ed t o t he cou rtt hathe had exp l ai ned t o B r i scoe t hat 3 3 y e a rs i s ro u g h l y h a l f o f w h a t h e c o u l d g e t u n d e r th e l a w . . . I th i n ktha t M r. B ri sc o e v e ry l i k e l y . . . is g o i n g to re c e i v e a l i fe se nt enc e. And I kno w t he C ourt[ has n’ t ] pr ej udge d t hat , butI t hi nk t hat ’ s w el l w i t hi n t he r ang e o fpos si bi l i t y . . . T h i rty -th r eei s t he b e st th e [ S ]t a te i s g o i n g to d o , a n d i t i s a b so l u t e ly a g a in st m y advi ce t hatw e ent eran op e n p le a in t hi s case and seek a p res e n ten c e i n v e sti g a ti o n b e c a u se I d o n o t be l i e v e tha t i s g o i n g to ben ef i thi m atal l . But , be yond t hat , I m ea n, I be l i eveev en t hough he’ s been t r eat ed by M H M R I do bel i eve he i s com pet ent . H e has th e c a p a c i ty . H e d i s c u s s e d w i th m e th e s e o ffe n s e s . H e a p p e a rs t o und er st and –t hatheunde r st and s t he pr oce dur e. I do n ott hi nk t hi s i s an i ssue ofcom pet en c y . I th in k he has t he r i ght t o m ake t hi s dec i si on eve n t hough i ti s, i n m y op i ni on, t he w r ong d ec i si on. A t t hi s sam e hear i ng, t he f ol l ow i ng exch ange subsequ ent l y t ook pl ace bet w een B ri sc o e an d the tr i a l co u rt : [T ri a l C o u rt ]: . . . Y o u u n d e rstan d the ran g e s o f pu n i sh m e n t? [ B r i s c o e ] : Y e s , ma ’ a m. [ Tr i a l C o urt ] : And di d yo u ha ve anyque st i onsatal l ab outt he doc um ent s you si gne d? [ B r i s c o e ] : N o , ma ’ a m.3 ... Spec i f i ca l l y, Br i sc oe ar gue s t hathi s i gnor anc e of t he con se que nce s of

hi s pl ea s of“ gui l t y”w i t houta pl ea ba rg a i n w as“ obvi ous ” bec aus e a tt he b e g i n n i n g o f t h e se n ten c i n g h e a ri n g , h e “fe rve n tl yreq u e ste d to b e all o w e d to 8 [T r ia l C o u rt ]: A n d y o u r a t t o r n e y h a s g o n e o v e r t h is w it h y o u . D id y o u h a v e a n yq u e s t i o n so fh i m? [ Br i sc oe] : He al r ea dy d i d, hedi d. M y a t t or neydi d. [ Tri al C ourt ] : D o you have any qu est i ons? [ Br i sc oe] : No. [T r ia l C o u rt ]: N o n e a ta ll? [ B r i s c o e ] : N o , ma ’ a m. The t r i al c o u rt con cl ude d t he hea r i ng bys t at i ng t he f ol l ow i ng: “ A nd I do f i nd t h a ty o u [] a r e c o m p e t e n ta n d f in d t h a ty o u a r e f r e e ly a n d v o lu n t a r ily m a k in g t h is deci si on a lb e it m a ybe no tt he sm art estone you everm ade. Thi s i s yourl ast cha nce . Do you w antt o c han ge your m i nd? ” To t hi s, Br i sc oe ans w er ed, “ N o,
m a’ am . ” The t r i alco urtco m pl i ed w i t h t he st at ut ory r equ i r em e n ts f orac ce pt i ng B r is c o e ’s g u ilt y p le a s t h r o u g h t h e w r it t e n a d m o n it io n s , w h ic h B r is c o e a n d h is at t or ney si gned . M or eover , gi ven t hose w r i t t en adm oni t i ons and t he det ai l ed d i s c u s s i o n sa t th e p l e a h e a ri n g b e tw e e n B ri s c o e , h i s a tto rn e y , a n d th e tri a l c o u rt abo utBr i sc oe’ s p l e a s , Br i sc oe’ s ar gum entt hathew as“ con f us ed”w hen he ent er ed hi s pl eas f ai l s t o sat i sf y hi s “heavy bur den” t o pr ove t hathi s pl eas 3a c c e p t, b e l a te d l y , th e th i rty -th re e y e a r p l e a b a rg a i n o ffe r.” 9 w e re i n v o l u n ta ry . S e eA c o sta , 1 6 0 S .W .3 d a t 2 1 1 ; A r re o la , 20 7 S . W . 3d at 3 9 1 . T h e refo re, w e o v e rr u l e B ri sc o e ’s fi rst po i n t.

I V . Asse ss m entofM axi m um Puni sh m ent I n hi s se con d poi nt , Br i sc oe ar gue s t hat t he t r i al cou rt ’ s as se ss m entoft he
m axi m um puni shm entas t o al l si x char ges vi ol at ed hi s D ue Pr ocess r i ghtsunder t he Fi f t h a nd F ourt ee nt h Am end m ent s of t he U ni t ed St at esConst i t ut i on. The St at e a r gue s t hatBr i sc oe f ai l ed t o pr es erve anyer r or ast o t hi s poi nt , t hough i tnot es t hatatl eastone c o u rt o f app eal s has hel d t hata def endan tm ay
c o m p l a i n for the fi rst t i m e o n ap p e a l ab o u t a tri a l c o u r t ‘ s a ll e g e d refu sa l to
c o n s i d e r th e fu l l ra n g e o f p u n i s h m e n t. Ja eni ck ev. S tate , 109 S. W . 3d 793, 7 9 6

– 9 7 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 3 , p e t. re f’d ); S tea d m a nv. S tate , 3 1 S .W .3 d 7 3 8 , 7 4 1

– 4 2 (T e x . A p p . — H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 0 , p e t. re f’d ). A s s u m in g , w it h o u td e c id in g , t h a tB r is c o e w a sn o tre q u ir e d t o p r e s e rv e h is
com pl ai ntf orappeal , w e concl ude t hathe has notshow n t hat he w as deni ed due pr ocess. A . Standar d ofRev i ew A t r i alco urtde ni es due pr oce ss w hen i t ar bi t r ar i l y r ef us es t o c ons i dert he
e n ti re ra n g e o f p u n i s h m e n t. Mc Clen a nv. S tate , 661 S. W . 2d 108 , 110 ( Tex.10

C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ), over ruled on other

groundsby D e Leon v. A gui l ar, 127 S .W .3 d 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ); Burkev. S tate , 930 S. W . 2d 230, 234 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 1996 , pe t . r ef ’ d) . “ A r bi t r ary”m ea ns ca pr i ci ousan d
u n re a s o n a b l e . Ro m a nv. S tate , 145 S . W . 3d 316, 320 ( Tex. A pp. — H ou s ton [ 14t h Di st . ] 2004 , pe t . r ef ’ d) . An opi ni on ba se d on per so nalkn ow l edg e a nd
r ea s o n is “ th e exactoppo si t e ofar bi t r ary. ” Id. I n t he absence ofa cl ear sh ow i ng to th e c ont r ary, w e a ss um e t hatt he t r i alco urtw asne ut r alan d d e ta c h e d i n i m p o s i n g a s e n t e n c e . Jaenicke , 1 0 9 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 6 ; Sal i nasv. S tate , 9 S .W .3 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 0 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t.). B . A n a ly s is I n a r gui ng t hatt he t r i al cou rt w as notne ut r alan d de t ac hed i n i m pos i ng it s s e n t e n c e , B r is c o e re lie so n s t a t e m e n t sb yb o t h t h e t r i a l c o u rta n d h is
a t t o r n e y . N e it h e r s t a t e m e n t , h o w e v e r , in d ic a t e s t h a t t h e t r ia l c o u rta r b it r a r ily
r ef us e d to c ons i dert he ent i r e r ang e o fpuni sh m ent . Dur i ng t he pl ea he ar i ng, t he t r i al courtst at ed t hat Bri scoe’ s besti nt er est“w oul d pr obab l y not be served by m e se t t i ng hi s se nt enc e. ” Thi s doe s not , i n a nd ofi t se l f , i ndi ca t e t hatt he tr i a l co u rta r b itrari l yrefu se d to c o n side r t h e en ti re ran g e o f pu n i sh m e n t. P a rt i c u l a rl ysi n c ethe tr i a l c o u rt k n e w th a t B ri sc o e w a n ted to p l e a d “g u i l ty” to al l si x char ges and t hathe w ant ed t o pl ead “t r ue” t o t he r epeat - of f endernot i ces11

i n fiv e o f th e char ges, t hi s st at em entdoes notcl ear l y i ndi cat e t hatt he t r i al
c o u rt w a sn o t n e u tra l a n d d e ta c h e d i n i m p o s i n g B ri s c o e ’s s e n te n c e . S ee Jaenicke , 1 0 9 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 6 ; Sal i nas , 9 S. W . 3d a t340. Br i sc oe al so r el i eson t he f ol l ow i ng s t at em ent f r om hi s att or ney : “I t hi nk th a t M r. B ri sc o e v e ry l i k e l yw o u l d b e fr o m a ju ry o r t h i s c o u rt , i s g o i n g to
rec e i v e a li fe s e n ten c e . A n d I kn o w the C o u rt[ h a sn ’t ] p rej u d g e d tha t, b u t I th i n kth a t’sw e l l w i th i n th e ra n g e o f p o s s i b i l i ty .”B yh i so w n w o rd s , h o w e v e r, B ri s c o e ’sa tto rn e ya c k n o w l e d g e d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt h a d n o t p rej u d g e d B ri s c o e ’s sent ence. I n t hi s sam e st at em ent , Bri scoe’ s at t or ney al so acknow l edged t hat b e c aus e of t he sp ec i f i c f ac t s of Br i sc oe’ s ca se , a l i f e se nt enc e w as “ v e ry l i ke l y. ” Thi s st at em ent , m adeby so m eon e v ery f am i l i arw i t h t he sp ec i f i csof Br i sc oe’ s ca se , s ugg e s ts t hati m pos i t i on ofa l i f e s ent enc e w oul d notbe “capr i ci ous and un r easonabl e. ” S ee Ro m an , 1 4 5 S .W .3 d a t 3 2 0 . F i n a l l y , w e n o te th a t o n th e d a yo f th e s e n te n c i n g h e a ri n g , th e tri a l c o u rt had r ecei ved and r evi ew ed B r i scoe’ s pr esent ence in v e s t i gat i on r eport , w hi ch
r ecom m ended t hatBr i scoe be sent enced t o pr i son “f ora l engthy t er m deem ed appr opr i at e by t he C ourt . ” D ur i ng t he hear i ng, t he S t at e of f er ed t he r eportas
e v i d e n c e , a n d B ri s c o e ’sa tto rn e ys ta te d th a t “ [w ]e h a v e n o o bj e c ti o n ss i n c e M r. Br i sc oe sp ec i f i ca l l y a sk ed t hatt hi s r epo rtbege n e ra te d an d a vai l abl e t o t he12

C o u rt o v e r m yo bj e c ti o n .”F o l l o w i n g te s ti m o n yb yB ri s c o e , th e tri a l c o u rt
se nt enc ed hi m . Al l oft hi s i ndi ca t est hatt he t r i alco urt ’ s as se ss m entof Bri scoe’ s puni shm entw as notar bi t r ary; i nst ead, i tw as based on “per sonal know l edge and r eason. ” See i d. Th us, Br i scoe has notcl ear l y show n t hatt he t r i al courtw as notneut r al
a n d d e ta c h e d i n i m p o s i n g th e s e n te n c e s . S ee Jaenicke , 109 S. W . 3d a t796; Sal i nas , 9 S. W . 3d at340. Br i sc oe’ s se con d poi nti s ove r r ul ed. V . Concl us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d b o th o f B ri s c o e ’sp o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL F: M C C O Y, LI V I N G STO N , an d DA U PH I N O T, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J un e 5, 2008