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 securing execution of a 

document by deception, both third-degree felonies, in connection with a scheme to defraud and 

deprive the Social Security Administration of property valued at $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 prison, probated for ten years, for securing 

execution of a document by deception; and a $10,000 fine in each case. 

In two issues, appellant contends the trial court violated his statutory and common-law 

rights to allocution. “Allocution” refers to a trial judge affording a criminal defendant the 

opportunity to “present his personal plea to the Court in mitigation 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, “whether he has anything to say why 

the sentence should not be imposed against him.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.07. 

The record here shows that after hearing punishment evidence, the trial court pronounced 

sentence without first asking appellant whether he had anything to say in mitigation. However, to 

complain on appeal of the denial of the right of allocution, whether 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 pet.) (mem. op.)(not designated 

for publication) (citing Tenon v. State, 563 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); 

McClintick, 508 S.W.2d at 618)). Appellant did not. Accordingly, we resolve both issues against 

him. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

180442F.U05 

Schenck, J., concurring 

Osborne, J., joining both majority 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 Osborne participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this 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 Osborne participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered August 22, 2019.