NO. 07-04-0417-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B JANUARY 5, 2005

______________________________ ROBERT EDWARD BARRIENTEZ, Appellant
v. THE STA

TE OF TEX

AS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 47 TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNT Y; NO. 14,041-A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ. Appellant

Robert Edward Barrientez appeals hisconviction for faili ng to comp ly with the sex offender registration requirements. His sole issue concerns whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to ob ject to the lack of a punishmenthearing. The adjudication of his guilt had originall y been deferred, and the trial court placed him on co mmunity su pervisio n. Per th e St ate’s second motion to revoke probation, the trial court convened a hearing whereat appellant pled true to each of the 122

allegations in the motion. Thereafter, the trial court asked the State for its recommendation
as to punishment. The prosecutor informed the co urt that it pr eviousl y agreed to recommend a six y ear sente nce. Thetrial co urt refuse d the re commendatio n, informed appellant

that it would assess eight years confinement, and ul timately assessed seven years upon theurging of appell ant’s attorney. B ecause n o separate punishment hearing
was conducted and since his counsel failed to complain about that, appellant asserts that he was d enied ef

fective counsel. We affirm the judgme nt. One claimin g ineffec

tive assi stance of c ounsel must establish not only that his counsel was defi cient bu t also th at the de ficiency was preju dicial. Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex . Crim. Ap p. 2002). To be prejudicial, the record must show that there ex ists
a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding wo ul d have been di fferent. Id. And, this occurs wh en th e circumstances undermine our confiden ce in theoutcome of the proc eeding. Id. Next, the entry

of a gui lty pleain a ben ch trial re sul ts in a unitary trial where the issues of guilt

and pun ishment a re submit ted at thesame time

. Lopez v. State, 96 S.W.3d 406, 412 (Tex. App.—Au stin 200 2, pet. re f’d). Although a defendant should be accorded an oppor tunity to offer evidence in mitigation of punishm ent after an adjudi cation o f guilt, there is no absolute right to a sepa rat e hearin g on the matter. Hardema n v. State , 1 S.W .3d 689, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The trial co urt need only afford the defendan t opportun ity

to presen t eviden ce someti me during the proce edings. Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 17 6, 179 (T ex. Crim . App. 19 99); Lopez v. State, 96 S.W.3d at 414. Here, the record illustrates that while no separate punishment hearing was convened, the trial court did inquire about the punishment to be levied. It not only solicited3

information from the State ( i.e. the recommendation resulting from plea negotiations), but also enterta ined th e comments of defen se couns el. Moreo ver, the l atter’s co mments
res ulted in the trial court reducing the length of the sen tence from eight years to se ven
. What other evidence, if any, appellant proposed to offer wentunmentioned in his brief. So too di d app ellant fail to inform us of how this unknown evidence may have altered the result. Given that the trial court did solicit and entertain information a nd argument about punishment , that t he trial court redu ced the p rison ter m it init ially de cided tolevy due to defense counsel’s arguments, and tha t appel lant failed to argue or illustrate that he had other relevant evidence which he was unab le to present, we cannot say that he established the prejudice required by Bone . Indeed, appellant did not even argue that he was prejudiced by the purporte d omissi on. See Ladd v. S tate, 3 S.W.3d 547, 570 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1999) (holding that because appellant made “no effort to prove the prejudic e prong,” he was n ot entitl ed to rel ief). Accordin gly, we o verrule t he issueand affi rm the judg ment.

Brian Quinn Justice Do not publish.