# "IST-IS In 1he. 

# Court' bfJLX\rr\i{\ol Qpptnjs . AbetAcosfrCtarj, 0f I£fes 

# Q.uk^jiih_Jk&a»s

__________ - - . 

# •^r.a fiaWTtn^" courtop^d,n " "A I, / COUR-T-OFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

# —%^t- wtzzms-

„ JA

# JhtXoarf Of___Q.^^[_S„

_ A^Acosta,clerk D____'_b_|_l_e^.__5 Bn_£ far fcke^ CWollanf 

# lookm,TJC ^ $454

# 4. # 

# dmbki 6Y iW/ea' find Counsel 

# 4 CoOfir Of piffeais/FM 0,£hc,f~OF 7<>kai ^ (oQQCommm^ __. 

# J Dfif]^,7X.J^.^€^__ (%o(Ct (IWe, [in11: TO0_jV(j_J_j!/L &7 fWhom, U 7S454

..__4_

# &. 

# __.jAc_ aoiuu^r _Q.ou^O(_)in.k__ Cacseci,. ,....

-+-

••i

# f

1 <

• '


# •^ i 1 !ft 

# Tajoit Of^oitob ._ .__ \Aqx\(^U 01" rarf/es and _... ...


# - ^Wenf- fegfi/dtnQ heed ftrg/jmenf



# ___ _.JuJb(^ J .._ inokl r£ Pjufhorik'o n_ 

# Sic^.it^pJl_.of_ih^_C(Ml^ _.

__ Cyrounds ft^ l?eu»>^o ^ ,()lgit(Y\Pnir QP &-J5 j 

# AummamJ)LRfciumtot...?..

...J&i9umer_r_, i '._..; ; ..a. _Px#M.e,_r 

# ^ ..jCer&JEu^oie^_^ 3uur>seJ ( ( i 

### K^y> 

# qurnenf ^ • 

# • I j

-—- 

## a

—• . ^ 

## s

^ ' 

# \o

^. V. TM* 

## 7

«. -_ TMr> 

# ~!-%

~- -__. *s 

# -^

— _* 

# --0

^ ** — 

# - m

*r 

# m

—

# PI 

# -f3- 

# Li-nde^ OF fliAbor>i-<es acxisoo Y- .Yi'rQ<o.icL,^ 0-S- 3ot/V.?7^) IL^C&s.. Penoi Cede--..J. 1.07£Q) .QjUd)_._a ten-minute recess, the trial court announced its finding that the enhancement paragraph was true and assessed punishment at sixteen years in prison, well within the range ofpunishment for the offense. The record is devoid ofany statements by the trial court or otherevidence indicating it failed to consider the full range ofpunishment or the evidence presented at the punishment hearing. Because there is absolutely no showing ofbias in the record, we presume the trial court's actions were correct. Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. We overrule Knox's second issue. We affirm the trial court'sjudgment.

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) 140551F.U05 / Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE

-6-first issue. B. Sentencing Knox argues in his second issue that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to prison "without articulating sufficient reason and for disregarding mitigation evidence presented by the defense." It is unclear whether this issue asserts the trial judge was biased or some other error in the sentencing process. From the argument and authorities cited in the brief, we consider the issue as raising a due process challenge to the sentence. However, Knox did not object to the sentence or otherwise bring this complaint to the attention ofthe trial court. We 

### doubt Knox preserved this issue for review, however, we conclude the record shows no partiality by the trial court or that an improper sentence was imposed. See Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 

### 639, 644-45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (reserving question whether objection in trial court is 

### required to preserve error regarding partiality ofthe trial court or imposition ofa predetermined sentence). 

### "Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer." Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. "[A] trial court's arbitrary refusal to considerthe entire range ofpunishment in a 

### particular case violates due process." Ex ParteBrown, 158 S.W.3d 449, 456 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. But "[ajbsent a clear showing ofbias, a trial court's actions will be presumed to have been correct." Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. Bias is not shown when (1) the trial court hears extensive evidence before assessing punishment, (2) the record 

### contains explicit evidence that the trial court considered the full range of punishment, and (3) the 

### trial court made no comments indicating consideration of less than the full range ofpunishment. See id.; see also Brown, 158 S.W.3d at 456. 

### The record shows the trial court heard punishment evidence and the arguments of 

### counsel. Appellantrequested probation and the Staterequested a sentence oftwenty years. After -5-

## Court ofAppeals Mttty Btstrttt of Qtexaa at Dallas JUDGMENT PATRICK ANTUAN KNOX, Appellant No. 05-14-00551-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court's opinion ofthis date, thejudgment ofthe trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 28th day ofMay, 2015. On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380-81027-2013. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Justices Lang and Schenck participating.

-7-