AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed August 22, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00442-CR No. 05-18-00443-CR DOUGLAS KEITH HALL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F16-00107-H & F16-00108-H 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck , Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Reichek Douglas Keith Hall entered open pleas of guilty to theft and se curing execution of a document by deception, both third-degree felonies, in connectio n with a scheme to defraud and deprive the Social Security Admin istration of property valued a t $30,000 or more but less than $150,000. The trial court accepted his pleas, found appellant guilty, and assessed concurrent sentences of eight years in prison for theft; ten years in pris on, probated for ten years, for securing execution of a document by deception; and a $10,000 fine in eac h case. In two issues, appellant contends the trial court violated his statutory and common-law rights to allocution. “Allocution” refers to a trial judge aff ording a criminal defendant the opportunity to “present his personal plea to the Court in mitig ation of punishment before sentence is imposed.” McClintick v. State , 508 S.W.2d 616, 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (op. on reh’g).–2– The statutory right is found in article 42.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and requires that the defendant be asked, before sentence is pronounced, “wh ether he has anything to say why the sentence should not be imposed against him.” T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 42.07. The record here shows that after hearing punishment evidence, t he trial court pronounced sentence without first asking a ppellant whether he had anything to say in mitigation. However, to complain on appeal of the denial of the right of allocution, wh ether statutory or one claimed under the common law, a defendant must timely object. See Gallegos-Perez v. State , No. 05-16-00015- CR, 2016 WL 6519113, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 1, 2016, no p et.) (mem. op.)(not designated for publication) (citing Tenon v. State , 563 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Te x. Crim. App. [P anel Op.] 1978);
McClintick , 508 S.W.2d at 618)). Appellant d id not. Accordingly, we reso lve both issues against him. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 180442F.U05

Schenck, J., concurring Osborne, J., joining both m ajority and concurrence /Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DOUGLAS KEITH HALL, Appellant
No. 05-18-00442-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-00107-H. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; Justices Schenck and Os borne participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of t his date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered August 22, 2019–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DOUGLAS KEITH HALL, Appellant
No. 05-18-00443-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-00108-H. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; Justices Schenck and Os borne participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of t his date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered August 22, 2019.