Cause No. PD-1627-14 

In the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas 

Michael Wade Riddle,

Petitioner 

v. 

The State of Texas,

Respondent 

On Review from Cause No. 02-14-00180-CR 

in the Second Court of Appeals 

Fort Worth, Texas 

State’s Response to Petitioner’s PDR 

Maureen Shelton 

Wichita County Criminal District Attorney 

Anthony Bates Carey Jensen 

Asst. Criminal District Attorney Asst. Criminal District Attorney 

Wichita County, Texas Wichita County, Texas 

State Bar No. 24076904 State Bar No. 24083252 

 Tony.Bates@co.wichita.tx.us Carey.Jensen@co.wichita.tx.us

900 Seventh Street 

Wichita Falls, Texas 76301 

(940) 766-8113 phone 

(940) 716-8530 fax 

Attorneys for Respondent State of Texas 

Oral Argument Not Requested 

PD-1627-14

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 12/29/2014 9:05:12 AM

Accepted 12/30/2014 9:59:38 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
2 

To the Court of Criminal Appeals: 

 Pursuant to Rule 68.9 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State 

submits its reply to Appellant’s petition for discretionary review. The State 

makes this reply in order to briefly address arguments set forth by 

Appellant in his petition. 

Statement Regarding Oral Argument

 The State is not requesting oral argument in this case. 

Argument 

The State respectfully requests this Court deny Appellant’s petition 

because (1) the Petitioner expressly waived his right to closing argument 

prior to the trial court’s announcement of the sentence; and (2) the 

probation condition that required the Petitioner to successfully complete 

sex offender treatment counseling was not modified; therefore, Tex. Crim. 

Proc. Code Ann. Art 42.12 §10(e) was not triggered. 

Petitioner expressly waived his right to closing argument in the 

disposition phase of trial. 

 

 Petitioner argues that the trial court refused to allow closing 

arguments on sentencing. Petitioner asserts that he did make an objection 

prior to the trial court pronouncing sentence and further that he was “not 

required to formally make a request again or except to the court’s ruling.” 

(PDR at 7) 
3 

 Petitioner was represented by his court-appointed counsel, Brennon 

Brady, at the sentencing hearing.1 Mr. Brady did make an objection prior to 

the pronouncement of sentence. However, Petitioner misleads this Court 

by insinuating that the objection pertained to closing arguments. (PDR at 5, 

7) Immediately preceding the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion for 

continuance, Mr. Brady stated, ““...there’s really nothing left for us [to do] 

other than hear the Court’s sentence in this case. And I’m prepared to hear 

the sentence and Mr. Riddle just would like to ask for a continuance so that 

[another attorney] would be present at the sentencing.” (R.R. 5:6) This 

constituted an express waiver of the right to closing argument by the 

Petitioner. 

The probation condition at issue was not modified. 

The condition at issue required Petitioner to “remain in the Sexual 

Abuse Treatment Program until the program [had] been successfully 

completed, as determined by the treatment specialist...” (C.R. 61) This 

condition did not specify who the treatment specialist would be or describe 

the program in any way, except by calling it the Sexual Abuse Treatment 

Program. As such, a change in provider or even the program itself did not 

 

1

 Despite repeated references to Mr. Brady as a fill-in attorney, he was in fact the 

Petitioner’s attorney of record at the time of trial. (C.R. 70) 
4 

constitute a modification of the condition, so long as it remained the Sexual 

Abuse Treatment Program. 

This is not to say that the State could have required Petitioner to 

participate in an unrelated program without proper modification simply by 

labeling that unrelated program the “Sexual Abuse Treatment Program.” 

Clearly, this was not such a situation. The program, regardless of changes 

in provider, really was always the Sexual Abuse Treatment Program, and 

nothing in the record indicates evidence to the contrary. As such, the only 

way for Petitioner to continue in the program as required by the probation 

condition was to continue with the new treatment provider. 

Prayer 

 The State prays that the Court deny Appellant’s petition for 

discretionary review. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Maureen Shelton 

Criminal District Attorney 

Wichita County, Texas 

 /s/Anthony Bates 

Anthony Bates 

Asst. Criminal District Attorney 

Wichita County, Texas 

State Bar No. 24076904 

Tony.Bates@co.wichita.tx.us
5 

/s/Carey Jensen 

Carey Jensen 

Asst. Criminal District Attorney 

Wichita County, Texas 

State Bar No. 24083252 

Carey.Jensen@co.wichita.tx.us

900 Seventh Street 

Wichita Falls, Texas 76301 

(940) 766-8113 phone 

(940) 766-8177 fax 

Certificate of Compliance 

I certify that this document contains 523 words. The body text is in 

14 point font, and the footnote text is in 12 point font. 

/s/Carey Jensen 

Certificate of Service 

I certify that on December 29, 2014, a true and correct copy of the 

above document has been forwarded Paul Francis via electronic service to 

pfrancis@birch.net as well as the State Prosecuting Attorney, Lisa C.

McMinn, via electronic service to information@spa.texas.gov. 

/s/Carey Jensen