Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed November 29, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00772-CR 

No. 05-20-00773-CR 

EVERETT GRAY, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F-1571448-I and F-1555801-I 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Schenck, Smith, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Garcia 

Appellant Everett Gray made open pleas of guilty to two offenses, and the 

trial judge sentenced him to prison terms of ten and twenty years. In three issues on 

appeal, he challenges both sentences and one duplicative assessment of court costs. 

We delete one assessment of court costs and otherwise affirm the judgments. 

I. Background 

Appellant was indicted for (1) unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and 

(2) illegal barter or investment. The illegal-barter indictment included one 

enhancement paragraph alleging use of a deadly weapon and a second enhancement 
 –2– 

paragraph alleging a prior felony conviction for aggravated robbery. Appellant 

waived his right to a jury and made open pleas of guilty to both indictments. He also 

pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs in the illegal-barter case. 

The evidence at appellant’s sentencing trial showed that appellant had contact 

with Dallas Police Department Detective Mario Castanon, who was posing as a drug 

dealer connected with a Mexican cartel. At first, appellant sought to buy five kilos 

of cocaine from Castanon. No agreement was reached, but Castanon then pretended 

to be interested in buying guns for the cartel, and appellant sold him two guns with 

the serial numbers filed down. Then appellant and Castanon agreed that Castanon 

would sell appellant one kilo of cocaine. When appellant and another person showed 

up to complete the transaction, they were arrested while they were sitting in their 

car. The police found a pistol on the seat between the other person’s legs, and they 

also recovered $13,000 from the car. 

Appellant’s parole officer testified that she thought appellant was a good 

parolee and that he deserved another chance on probation. On cross-examination, 

the parole officer testified that appellant had had a previous probation for aggravated 

robbery revoked when he committed the offenses of burglary of a vehicle and 

possession of marijuana. Appellant was then sentenced to fifteen years in the 

penitentiary, was paroled in September 2013, and began meeting with Detective 

Castanon in May 2014. 
 –3– 

Appellant testified at sentencing and also called his wife, his mother, and his 

cousin as character witnesses. He also introduced into evidence some written 

statements from other character witnesses. Appellant developed evidence that he 

was working on an internet-based project called “My Senior Year 2k” that was 

intended to raise money for needy high-school seniors. 

During closing argument, appellant’s attorney asked the court to put appellant 

on probation. The State’s attorney argued against probation and asked the court to 

sentence appellant to twenty years in prison. The trial judge sentenced appellant to 

ten years in prison on the unlawful-possession charge and twenty years in prison on 

the illegal-barter charge. The signed judgments reflected these sentences, and each 

judgment assessed $249 in court costs against appellant. 

Appellant timely appealed. 

II. Analysis 

Appellant’s first two issues on appeal argue that the trial court abused its 

discretion in sentencing him because the sentences do not comport with the 

objectives of the Texas Penal Code. His third and final issue argues that the trial 

court erred by assessing court costs against him in both judgments. 

A. Issues One and Two: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing 

sentences contrary to the objectives of the Penal Code? 

Appellant concedes that his sentences fall within the statutory ranges, but he 

argues nonetheless that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to 

prison instead of community supervision because imprisoning him runs contrary to 
 –4– 

the Penal Code’s stated objective of rehabilitating those convicted of crimes. See

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.02(1)(B). The State argues that appellant failed to 

preserve error and that his first two issues also fail on the merits. 

We conclude that appellant’s first two issues were preserved and that they fail 

on the merits. 

1. Error was preserved. 

Generally, to preserve a complaint for appeal a party must make the complaint 

to the trial court and obtain a ruling. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Error 

preservation is a systemic requirement, and we should not address the merits of 

unpreserved issues. Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). In 

determining whether error was preserved, we do not consider arguments in isolation 

but instead look to the context of the entire record. Douds v. State, 472 S.W.3d 670, 

674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). A party need not use magic words or cite a specific 

statute to preserve an issue as long as the basis of his complaint is evident to the trial 

court. Bryant v. State, 391 S.W.3d 86, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). We have held that 

§ 1.02 arguments like appellant’s must be preserved in the trial court to avoid 

forfeiture on appeal. See, e.g., Hicks v. State, No. 05-20-00614-CR, 2021 WL 

3042672, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 19, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated 

for publication). 

Here, we conclude that appellant adequately preserved error. 
 –5– 

First, appellant’s evidence raised the issue of rehabilitation, which is the focus 

of his § 1.02 argument. His parole officer testified that appellant deserved a second 

chance, that he would benefit from a “behavior program,” and that she believed he 

could succeed on probation. Appellant’s wife testified that appellant needed 

something to help him learn “how to adapt in society.” His mother testified that he 

needed “some kind of behavioral help.” Appellant testified that he needed to 

rehabilitate himself. Appellant’s cousin testified and urged that “[t]here is no 

rehabilitation from prison here.” And a letter from appellant’s pastor, which was 

admitted into evidence, pleaded that appellant be allowed “to continue his journey 

of rehabilitation.” 

Second, although appellant’s attorney did not cite § 1.02 during closing 

argument at sentencing, he did argue that evidence showed appellant to be a good 

candidate for deferred adjudication and that appellant’s “criminal thinking” could be 

corrected with proper therapy. He also argued that appellant should be “sent to ISF[1]

to get the tools that he needs to finish the race.” 

We conclude that the foregoing was sufficient to alert the trial judge that (1) 

appellant wanted the judge to order deferred adjudication and (2) appellant 

contended deferred adjudication was justified for rehabilitative purposes. 

Accordingly, we conclude that error was preserved. See Bryant, 391 S.W.3d at 91–

1

 “ISF” means “intermediate sanction facility.” See White v. State, 508 S.W.3d 509, 509 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2016, no pet.). 
 –6– 

92 (concluding that appellant’s evidence and arguments sufficed to preserve error in 

the trial court). 

2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. 

The trial court has broad discretion in assessing a defendant’s sentence within 

the statutory range. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1984). Appellant concedes that his sentences of ten and twenty years in prison are 

within the statutory ranges for his offenses. Here, we conclude that the trial court did 

not abuse its broad discretion. 

As discussed above, appellant presented some witnesses who urged the trial 

court to be lenient and give appellant a chance to seek rehabilitation. However, 

rehabilitation is not the only objective of the Penal Code. Deterrence and prevention 

of recurring criminal behavior are also objectives of the Code. See PENAL

§ 1.02(1)(A), (C). 

Here, the trial court heard evidence that weighed against leniency. For 

example, when appellant committed the current offenses, he was on parole from a 

prison sentence for aggravated robbery. Appellant also admitted that he used 

marijuana and “abscond[ed]” from probation for a prior offense. Moreover, 

appellant admitted that he wanted to make money by reselling five kilograms of 

cocaine. Other evidence showed that he was willing to sell guns to Detective 

Castanon, ostensibly for use by a Mexican cartel, and that he told Castanon that he 
 –7– 

was willing to carry cocaine for him while carrying out appellant’s trade as a truck 

driver. 

Based on the totality of the circumstances and the objectives of the Penal 

Code, we conclude that the trial court did not act unreasonably or abuse its broad 

discretion by sentencing appellant as it did rather than giving him deferred 

adjudication. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s first two issues on appeal. 

B. Issue Three: Did the trial court err by assessing court costs in both cases? 

Each judgment assessed $249 in court costs against appellant. In his third 

issue, appellant argues that the assessment should be deleted from the judgment 

convicting him of unlawful possession of a firearm. The State agrees with 

appellant’s argument. So do we.2

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides, “In a single criminal action in 

which a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses . . ., the court may assess 

each court cost or fee only once against the defendant.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 102.073(a). Here, appellant was convicted of two offenses in a single 

criminal action. See Burns v. State, No. 05-19-00905-CR, 2021 WL 791421, at *2 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 2, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) 

(there was a “single criminal action” where defendant pleaded guilty to two charges, 

2

 Appellant was not required to preserve this issue in the trial court. See Hurlburt v. State, 506 S.W.3d 

199, 204 n.3 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, no pet.); see also Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 391 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2014) (“[W]e hold that Appellant need not have objected at trial to raise a claim challenging the bases 

of assessed costs on appeal.”). 
 –8– 

waived his right to jury trial, and was convicted and sentenced by trial court). Thus, 

the trial court should have assessed court costs only once. 

The Code also provides, “In a criminal action described by Subsection (a), 

each court cost or fee the amount of which is determined according to the category 

of offense must be assessed using the highest category of offense that is possible 

based on the defendant’s convictions.” CRIM. PROC. art. 102.073(b). Appellant’s 

illegal-barter conviction involved the higher category of offense (a first-degree 

felony), so the trial court erred by assessing court costs in the unlawful-possession 

case (a third-degree felony). 

We sustain appellant’s third issue. 

III. Disposition 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment in the illegal-barter case, trial court case 

number F15-55801-I. We modify the trial court’s judgment in the unlawfulpossession case, trial court case number F15-71448-I, by deleting the assessment of 

$249 in court costs, and we affirm that judgment as modified. 

 

Do Not Publish 

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) 

200772F.U05 

 

/Dennise Garcia/ 

DENNISE GARCIA 

JUSTICE 
 –9– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

EVERETT GRAY, Appellant 

No. 05-20-00772-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District 

Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1571448-I. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Schenck and Smith 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we MODIFY the judgment of the 

trial court as follows: 

 The section entitled “Court Costs” is modified to show “$ N/A.” 

As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered November 29, 2021. 

 
 –10– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

EVERETT GRAY, Appellant 

No. 05-20-00773-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District 

Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1555801-I. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Schenck and Smith 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered November 29, 2021