### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 01 87 -C R

______________________________ J AMES FRANKL I

N B ONNER, JR ., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 402nd Judi cial District Court

Wood C ounty , Texas Trial Court No. 19,739-2007

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issA j ud g e may no t pl a c e a

de fe nd ant o n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on if he or s he is f

ound g uil ty 1 of using or exhibit ing a

deadly wea pon during t h e co m m i ssion of the felony . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 42 .1 2, § 3g (a )( 2) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ). A j ur

y , h ow e ve r, may

a sse ss c omm

un ity supervision if the jury

assesses punishment, unless the de fenda nt i s s en tence d to a term of imprisonment that e x cee ds ten y ear s. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 42.12, § 4(d) (1) ( Ver non Supp. 2008). To be elig ible for jury -asse ssed community supervision, a defenda nt must file a written sworn motion before trial with the court that he or she has not previously been c onvicted of a

felony in any state. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 4 2. 12 , § 4( e ) ( Ve rn on Sup p. 20 08 ). Tr ia l c ouns e l is ineffe ctiv e i f he or

she fa ils to verify

a motion for community supervision. Ex parte W elch , 981 S.W .2d 183, 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Ma yv . S tat e , 6 60 S.W. 2d

88 8, 89 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 1983), a ff 'd , 7 22 S.W. 2d 69 9, 70 0 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ); Tre v ino v . S tat e , 752 S.W .2d 735, 736 (Tex. App.—Eastland), p e t
. di s m 'd , 7 5 9 S
. W .2d 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). These f ailures of counsel da shed any

hope for Bonne r to g et community supervision. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Af t er a jury found James F r an k l i nB o n n e r , Jr
. , g u i l t y o f a g g r a v a t e d

a s s a u l tw i t h a d e a dly
we a po n, B on ne r, ba se d o n unf or tun a te a dv ic e fr om a

pp oin te d c ouns e l, a g re e d to have the tr ia l c ourt , not the jury , assess his punishment. Bonne r' s counsel also fa iled to file a swor n motion for
c omm un ity su pe rv isi on wi th t he c ourt be fo re tr ia l. Th e se a c tio ns ma de it i mpo ssi ble fo r B on ne r t o
rec eive c ommunity

supervision. He wa s sentence d to ten y ear s' confine ment.

1 A diffe rent attorney

filed a motion for ne w trial on both g uilt/i nnocenc e and punishment ba se d o n th e argume nt t

hat tr ia l c ouns e l' s a c tio ns a mou nte d to in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. After a hearing in which trial counsel admitt ed his mistake, the t rial court gr anted the motion for ne w tr ia l on punis hme nt onl y . O n r e tr ia l, t he jur y a sse sse d B on ne r' s se nte nc e a t tw e lve y e a rs ' imprisonment without communi ty supervision. On appe al from that r esult, Bonne r conte nds that the trial court should have g rante d a new trial on both g uilt/i nnocenc e and punishment. We disag ree .3

I n both issues presente d, Bonne r ar g ues that he r ece ived ineff ective a s s is ta

n ce of trial counsel during the g uilt/i nnocenc e phase. He cites no action or inaction of counsel duringg uilt/i nnocenc e;
we c an ide nti fy a s argua

bly ine ff e c tiv e on ly

c ouns e l' s a c tio ns re fe re nc e d a bo ve , w hic h a ff

e c te d o nly the punishment phase. Whil e the prese nted issues are inadequately briefe d, more importantly , the
rec ord re veals they

are without merit. T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1(i). The State doe s not c laim that the trial court err ed in r uling that trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive wi th r e sp e c t to the punis hme nt p ha se of the tr ia l. I ns te a d, the State argue s tha t any ine ff e c tiv e ne ss
was c ured by

the new tr ial on punishment. I n support, t he State re lies on Rule 21.9 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e which states that a "c ourt must g rant only a new trial on punishment whe n i t h as f

ou nda gr o u n d t h a t af

fect ed o nl y

th e ass ess men t o f pu ni sh men t. " T EX . R. A PP . P. 21.9(a) . "G ranting a new trial on punishment restore s the ca se to its posit ion after the def endant wa s fou ndguil ty ." T EX . R. A PP . P. 21.9(c).Rule 21 of the Te x as Rules of Appe llate Proce dure w as ame nded, ef fec tive J anuar

y 1, 2007. 2 Am on g the a me ndme nts to t hat r ule wa s th e re qu ir e me nt t hat, w he n a

n e rr or a ff e c te d o nly puni s h m en t , t ri al courts are to g rant ne w trials on punishment only
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 21.1(b), 21 .9 (a ). B e fo re 20 07 , n e w tri a ls o n o nly punis hme nt c ou ld b e g ra nte d by an a

pp e llate c ourt , bu t a tr ial cou rt cou ld no t "grant a new tr ial as to th e pu ni sh men t ph ase of a tr ial on ly ." State v. Hight , 907 S.W. 2d 84 5, 84 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 1995 ); se e Sta te v . S te war t , N o . 0 3
- 0 7
- 0 0 7 3 5
- CR , 2 0 0 9 WL 10 24 72 1, a t *9 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin Ap r. 15 , 2 00 9, no pe t. h .) ; se e als o Ca the ri ne Gr e e ne B ur ne tt, J ustice Ke rry

P. Fitzger ald, Cha ng es to theTe x as Ru le s of A pp e lla te Pr oc e du re , 70 T EX . B AR J O U RN A L 77 2 ( Oc tob e r 2 00 7) . We must d isa g re e wi th a re c e nt o pin ion

fr om o ne of

our s ist e r c ourt s of appe als that has re cited the pr evious rules prohibiting trial courts fr om ordering n ew t rials on punishment only
. Se e Mo rn ing v . S tat e , N o . 1 0
- 0 8
- 0 0171-CR, 2009 WL 3 3 3 5 7 8 , a t * 1 ( T e x. Ap p . —W ac o Fe b
. 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , p et . fi l ed
. ) ( m em . o p . ) ( ci t i n g So rto v . S tat e , 1 7 3 S. W. 3 d

4 6 9 , 4 9 0 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2005)). 4 Attackingthe trial cour

t's a uthority to gr ant a ne w tri al o n p u nishment, Bonner cites ca ses that pre- date th e am endments to Rules 21.1 and 21.9. See M ay , 6 60 S.W. 2d

88 8; Trevino , 752 2 S.W .2d 735. Be cause t h e c i t edi n ef

fe ct i v e a s s i s t an ce o cc u rr edo n l y at t h e i n i t i al p u n i s h m en tphase, the trial court prope rly

g rante d new tria l on the issue of punishment only
. Se e Ste war t , 2009 WL 1024721, at *10. There is no claim that ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel occ urre d in the latter punishment tr ia l. We ov e rr

ule B on ne r' s p oin ts o f e rr or and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

J o s h R
. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: J une 5, 2009 Date D ecide d: J une 8, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh