## NOS. 12-08-00351-CR 12-08-00352-CR 12-08-00353-CR 12-08-00354-CR 12-08-00355-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

CHAR LES WA Y

NE MILLER, § APPEAL F ROM THE 114TH APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Appellant Charle s W ay

n e Miller appea ls his convictions for ag g ravated assault and ag g ravated robbe ry . I n three issues, he ar g ues that the trial court erre d by moving dire ctly

into the punishment phase of a

revoc ation hear ing a fter f inding him g uilty , that the t rial court should not have considere d cer

tain evidenc e, and that the sentenc es he re ce i v ed ar e disproportionate to the crimes he c omm itt e d. We a ff

ir m.

B ACKG ROUND I n 2000, Appellant pleade d g uilty to indictments alleg ing that he committed four a g g ravated robber ies and one ag g ravated assault. The trial court defer red adjudication of his g uilt in each of the fi ve c a se s and

pla c e d h im o n c omm

un ity su perv is io n. I n 2 00 8, the State fi le d a n a pp lic a tio n to pr oc e e d to a dju dic a tio n a lle g ingthat App e lla nt ha d po sse sse d and us e d c oc a ine

. Th e tr ia l c ourt he ld2

a hea ring , and Appe llant admitted that the alleg ations in the State’s application were true. The trial court re voked his co m m u nity supervision, found Appe llant guilty , and asse ssed punishment at imprisonment for twenty y ear s on the ag g ravated assault cha rg e and fi ft y y ea rs on eac h of the ag g ravated robbe ry

char g es. The tr ial court a lso ordere d a fine of $5,000 in ea ch ca se and or dere d that the prison sentenc es be se rved c oncurr ently . This appea l followed.

T IM ING O F P U N I SHM ENT H E ARI NG I n his first issue, Appellant ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed by proce eding direc tly from the ad j u d i ca t i o np h as e o f t h e r ev o ca t i o nh ea ri n g t o t h e pu n i s h m en t p h as e of t h e h ea ri n g. C i t i n g Issa v. Sta te , 826 S.W .2d. 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), Appellant asse rts that the trial cour t’s method of conductingthe hea

ring den ied him the opportunity to present e vidence for the c ourt to consider befor e asse ssing punishment. We ag ree with Appellant that a tria l court must provide a de fenda nt the opportunity

to present punishment evidence

. S

ee i d. at 1 6 1 (c o n s t ru i n g T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 42.12, § 5(b) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 )) . H ow e ve r, wh a t is re qu ir e d is that a de fe nd ant be given an o pp or tun ity to pr e se nt e vid e nc e —it

is n ot n e c e ssa

ry that a punis hme nt h e ari ngbe he ld a t a dif fe re nt t ime or

date than the adjudication hearing

. See Eule r v . St ate , 218 S.W .3d 88, 91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Mo re imp or

tantl y , th is kin d of co mpl a int mus t be pr e se rv e d by an obje c tio n eithe r at the tim e the opportunity

to present e vidence is denied or by raisingthe issue in a motion for new trial. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3. 1; Iss a , 8 26 S.W. 2d a t 16 1; see also Eul

er , 2 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d

at 9 2 (ap p l yi n g Duh art
v . St ate , 668 S.W .2d 384, 387 (1984), and concluding that it was “implicit in our analy sis that if the
a pp e lla nt i n th a t c a se ha d w ante d to pre se nt ev ide nc e on punis hme nt, he sh ou ld have a sk e d to do so at the re vocation hea

ring [] ”). App e ll an t d id

n o t p r e s e r

v e th is c o mp la int. A f

te r f in d in g Ap p e ll an t gu il ty , th e tr ia l c ourt be g an th e punis hme nt p ha se of the he ari ng and of fe re d b oth the State and

Ap pe lla nt t he op po rt un ity to present additional evidenc e. Appellant’s counsel said that he had no additional evide nce, a nd he did not object to the trial court pr ocee ding dir ectly to the punishment phase. Appellant also did not
ra ise a c omp la int

a bo ut t he tr ia l c ourt ’s pr oc e dure in h is m oti on fo r n e w tri a l. Be cause Appellant did not object conte mporane ously or raise this iss ue in a motion for ne wT h e pr es en t en ce i n v es t i g at i on r epor t i s n ot i n t h e appe l l at e r ec or d. I t w as n ot s pec i f i ca l l y r equ es t ed by 1 A p p e llan t, a n d he ha s n o t so u g h t t o su p p le m e n t t h e re c o rd to inc lud e it

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 34. 5( c) ( 1) ( al l owi n g f or s uppl ement at i on of

t he r ecor d). I t i s cl ear f r om t he t r i al j udge’ s r emar ks t hat s he i s r eadi ng f r om t he pres ent enc e i n v es t i g at i on r epor t
. At on e poi n t , a f t er r ec i t i n g s ome of

t h e f ac t s s u r r ou n di n g t h e r obber y , t h e t r i al j u dg e s ay s , “ So I jus t want t o m ake sur e, be cause t hi s p res ent ence [repo rt ] makes i t pret t y cl ear t hat t hat pe rs o n was t he o ne b o ss i ng –

– tha t wa s the p e rs o n giv ing the o rd e rs . . . . ” 3 trial, t h i s i s s u e i s not preser ved for appellate revie w. See Iss a , 826 S.W .2d at 161

. We o ve rr ule Appellant’s f

irst issue.

C RUE L AND U N U SUA L P UNI S HM E NT I n his se cond issue, Appellant ar g ues that his sentenc e wa s disproportionate to the off enses fo r wh i ch he wa s convicted. See U. S. C O N ST . ame nd VI I I ; T EX . C O N ST . art I , § 1 3

. H o w ever , Appellant has f

ailed to pre serve this iss ue for appellate re v i ew b y objectingto the sentenc e in the trial court or

by raising the issu e in a motion for new tr ial. See Wil lis v . St ate , 192 S.W .3d 585, 5 9 5

– 9 7 (T ex . A p p . – T y l er 2 0 0 6 , p et
. re f’ d ) ( ci t i n g Rhoa de s v . St ate , 9 3 4 S. W. 2 d

1 1 3 , 1 2 0 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ) ( wa ive r w ithre g ard to r ig hts un de r t

he Te xas C on sti tut ion ); Curr y v . St ate , 910 S.W .2d 490, 497 (Tex. Crim. A p p . 1995) (wa iver with re g ard to rig hts under the United States Con sti tut ion )) ; see also T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1. Acc ording ly , we ove rrule A ppellant’s sec ond issue.

C O N SI D ER A TIO N O F E VI DE NCE I n his third issue, Appellant argues that t he trial c ourt consider ed evide nce that had not been admitted at the punishment phase of the re vocation hea

ring . Specifica lly , Appellant complains that the trial co urt consider ed an of fense repor

t before assessing punishment. L ikening it to a letter written to the court, he argues that the repor t w as not a dmitted into evidenc e and the tri al court should not have consider ed it. The trial judg e re ad fr om an offe nse re po rt t h at was c ontained in the pre sentenc e investigation report and off ere d the parties an opportunity to comment on the conc lusions she drew 1 fr om t he re po rt . App e lla

nt’ s c ouns e l r e sp on de d b y sayingthat he wo uld have to l oo k at th e of fe ns e repor t and by offe ring his own interpre tation of the eve nts describe d. Appellant did not object to the trial c ourt’s consider ation of the off ense r eport a

nd, there fore , has not prese rved this issue for a ppellate r eview. T he t ri al cour t is authorized to consider4

information containe d in a pre sentenc e investi g ation repor t. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt
. 42.12, § 9(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). I f a de fenda n t wishes to complain on appe al about the tria l court’s c onsideration of material in the pre sentenc e investig ation repor t, the defe ndant must raise a n objection in the trial cour

t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3. 1( a )( 1) (A ); Bro wn v . St ate , 692 S.W .2d 497, 501 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (en banc) (over broad objection not suf ficient to pre serve complaint about
a “pen packe t” us e d in

se nte nc ingpr oc e e din g ); Sanc he z v . St ate , 2 2 2 S

. W

. 3 d

8 5 , 8 9

– 9 0 ( T e x. App.–Tyler 2006, no pe t.) (no complaint pre serve d when defe n d an t d i d not object to poly g raph results incl u d ed i n p re sentenc e investig ation repor t); Je nning

s v . St ate , 6 4 7 S. W. 2 d

1 8 , 2 2 ( T e x. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, pet. re f’d) (no complaint prese rved when def endant did not object to trial court’s consideration of prese ntence investigation report). B eca use Appe llant did not object to th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s c o n s id e r a ti o n o f th e o f f e n s e r e p o rt, th is is s u e is n o t p r e s e r v e d f o r o u r r e v ie w . We
overr ule Appellant’ s third issue.

D I S P OS I T I ON Havingoverr

uled Appellant’ s three issues, w e af fi rm the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.



### BRIAN HO Y LE J ustice
Opinion delivere d Aug ust 12, 2009. Pane l co ns i s t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)