T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 9.02 (a)(1) ( V ern on 20 03 ). 1 Id

. § 1 2.42 (b) ( V ern on 20 03 ). 2 

### NUM BER 13-07- 733- CR



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
JU A N A NT ONIO HER NA ND EZ , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 97t h Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

Opin ion b y

Ju stice Ya ñe z Appel lan t, Juan Antoni o H er nandez , w as indi cte d for the offense of robbe ry , w it h 1 an enha ncementfor a pr ior felony co nv ic ti on. After

a be nch tr ial , H er nandezw as found 2 g uil ty and sent enced to tw enty -four yea rs’ i mpri sonment

. In t hree i ss ues, H er nandezSee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43. 3. 3 See id. 38

. 1(e ). 4 T he St at e woul d on l y be bar r ed f r om re t r y i ng H er nande z i ft hi s C our t r ev er sed o n l egal suff i ci ency 5 gr ounds. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38

. 1(e ).

6 2 asserts th at (1) he did not inte llig ent ly w aive h is r ig h tt o a jurytrial; (2) his conviction is base d on insuf

f icient evidence ; and (3) the t rial cou rt erred in ref using to consid er the f ull
ra ng e of pun ish m e n t av ail abl e w hen det er mini ng hi s s entenc e. W e aff ir m in par t and
re v erse in par

t. I. Leg al S uf fi cien cy W e beg in by

address ing H er nandez ’s se cond is sue on appe al becau se itaffords him the g re ates t re lief i f sust ain ed. I n hi s s econd i ss ue, H er nandezcl aims thatthe 3 evidence is insuf

f icient to supp ort his conviction. Hernan dez d oes notst ate w het her he is
ra is in g a le ga l o r fa c t u a l su f f ic ie n c y c h a ll e n ge , o r bo t h

. He s e t s o u t n o s t a n d a rd s o f re vie w. T h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a tw e s h o u l d f i n d t h i s i s s u e w a i v e d fo r i n a d e q u a t e b r i e f i n g . W e 4 decl ine to w aiv e the is sue, and shal l address it as a leg al suffici ency ch all eng e bec ause, at t he c oncl usi on of H er nandez ’s arg ument, he states thataffordin g hi m reli ef on thi s i ss ue w ould prohibit th e Sta te for retry ing him for robbe ry . If it w as Hernan dez’s inten t to raise 5 a factual su ff ic ien cy

ch all eng e, t hat c hal len g e i s w aiv ed. 6 1. A pp licab le L aw In rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce to s uppor t a conv ic ti on, w e v iew all the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdict in order to deter mine w hether

any ra ti onal t rie r o f

f actco uld hav e found the es sent ial el ements of the c ri me bey ond aJ a c k s o n v . Vir g in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9 ); H a m p to n v . S ta te , 1 6 5 S .W .3 d 6 9 1 , 6 9 3 ( T e x . C r im

. 7 A pp . 20 05 ).

Jackson , 443 U

. S. at 319

. 8 See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. a rt. 3 8 .0 4 (V e rn o n 1 9 7 9 ); M a rg ra v e s v . S ta te , 34 S. W

. 3d 9 12, 919 9 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 00 ).

D e w b e rr

y v . S ta te , 4 S

. W

. 3d 73 5, 74 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 99 ). 10 C u rr y v . S ta te , 30 S

. W

. 3d 39 4, 40 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 00 ). 11 T EX P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 9.02 (a). 12 I d. § 3 1.03 (Ve rno n 2 00 3). 13 Id

. § 1

. 07 (a)(8) ( V ern on 20 03 ). 14 3 re asona ble doubt

. Thi s s tandard g iv es full pla y to the respon si bil ity

of the tr ier

of fact to 7 resolve conf licts in the test imo ny, to w eigh the evidence , and to d raw reason able inferences from bas icfact s to ulti mate facts

. The t ri er of fact i s t he s ole j udg e of the 8
we ig h ta n d c re d ib il it y o f t h e e vid e n c e . T h u s , wh e n p e rfo rm in g a le ga l s u f f ic ie n c y re vie w, 9
w e may not re -e v alu ate t he w eigh t and credi bil ity of the e v ide nce and s ubst it ute o ur judgme nt for thatof

the fact-f inde r. W e mu st resolve anyinconsiste ncies in the ev iden ce 10 in fav or of the fin din g of g uil t. 11 To prov e tha t H er n a n d e zw as g uil ty of ro bber

y , t he St ate h ad to prov e tha t Her nandez , “ in the c ourse of commit ti ng theft as defined in Cha pter 31 a nd w it h int ent t o obt ain or ma inta in cont rol of the pro perty,” either: “inten tiona lly , knowing ly , or recklessly
caus e[d] bodi ly

i nju ry to another ,” or (2 ) “i ntent ion all y or kn ow ing ly

threaten[ ed] o r pla ce[ ed] another i n fe a r o f i mm i n e n t b o d i l y i n j u r y o r d e a t h

. ” Th e p e n a l c o d e d e fi n e s t h e ft as

12 unla wf ully

app ropriating prope rty

w ith inte nt to d eprive th e owner of t he p rope rty

. Bodily 13 inj ur y is “phy si cal pain, il lne ss , or any i mpair ment of phy si cal co ndi ti on.” Thi s d efini ti on 14L a n e v . S ta te , 76 3 S

. W

. 2d 78 5, 78 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 89 ). 15 I d. at 78 7 (i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ). 16 T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 9.02 (a)(1). 17 4 is broadl y

co nst ru ed to i ncl ude “ ev en rela ti v ely min or phy si cal co n ta cts s o l ong as they const itute more than mere of fensive touch ing.” In the case o f rob bery, the bo dily

injury 15 elem entis satisf ied w hen “v iolence is clearly perp etrat ed against ano the r for the p urpo se of . . . prev enti ng or

ov er comi ng resi sta nce to t heft.” 16 2. Disc ussi on Her nandez ’s br ief onl y as ser ts that there i s l eg all y i nsuffici ent e v ide nce that Hernan dez “i nte ntion ally , knowing ly , or recklessly cause [d] b odily injury to an oth er.” This 17 assertio n, ho w ever, is ref ute d b y the te stimo ny of

Juan Jose Moron, w ho, as loss pr ev enti on officer

at J.C . Pe nney , i ntercept ed H er nandez as he w alk ed outof J.C . Pe nny w it h unpai d mer chand is e. Mo ro n tes ti fied th at he and He rn a n d e z go t “ int o a s cuffle,” dur ing w hic h ti me H er nandez“ w as p u shing and tr [y ing ] t o g et aw ay .” As a resul t of the pushi ng , M oron s uff ered i nju ri es to hi s n ose, sh oul d e r, r igh t w ri st, and left ha nd. Base d on M oron’ s te st imony , w e find there i s l eg all y su ff ic ien t ev ide nce that Her nandez in t e n t io n a ll y, kn o win gl y, o r r e c k l e s s ly c a u s e d b o d il y in ju ry t o Mo ro n . Ac c o rd in gl y, we ov er ru le Her nandez ’s se cond is sue. II. Waiv er o f Jur

y T rial Ar ti cl e 1.1 3( a) of

the code of cr imi nal procedu re prov ide s, in re lev ant p art, that the d e fe n d a n t“s h a ll h a ve t h e ri g h t , u p o n e n t e ri n g a p le a , t o wa ive t h e ri gh to f t ri a l b y ju ry, condi ti oned, how ev er , t hat s uch w aiv er mustbe made in pers on bythe defendant in w ri ti ng in open c our

t w it h the co nsent and approv al of t he c our t, and t he at tor ney

represent ing theT EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 1. 13 (Ve rno n 2 00 5). 18 M s . C h u r c h w a s H e r n a n d e z ’s d e f e n s e c o u n s e l. 19 Em phasi s add ed. 20 H er nande z ’ s Br i efat 8. 21 5 Sta te.” Hernand ez’s ope n cou rt w aiver occurred in the followi ng man ner:

18 THE CO UR T: Y ou can hav e a jur y tr ial or a bench tr ial

. W hic h one do y ou w ant? [HERNANDEZ]: W hatis a bench trial? THE C OU RT: The ju dg e make s t he dec is ion

. [H ER N AN D EZ ]: Y ou c an ma k e th e de c i s i on for me , ma ’ am . MS. CHUR CH: All ri ght. Th en we w ill do a ben ch trial. 19 Her nandezthus w aiv ed hi s r ig ht to a jur y tr ial in open cour

t by ele cti ng to communi cat e any w aiv er throug h hi s couns el, Ms

. Chu rc h. The re cord further re v eal s t hat H er nandezmade his w aiv er

i n a w ri ti ng , w hic h s tated : CO ME S N O W J u a n A n t o n io H e rn a n d e z, t h e De fe n d a n tin t h e a b o ve ent itled an d nu mb ered cau s e , a felon y less than capita l, in person and in w ri t i n g i n o p e n C o u rt , a n d w i t h t h e c o n s e n t a n d a p p ro v a l o f t h e C o urt and w it h the w ri tten and s ig ned c o n sent and approv al of the at tor ney re present ing the Stat e, and pr ior to the enter ing of a pl ea herein , w aiv es the ri g ht of a t ri al by

j ur y , both as to the i ss ue of g uil t or i nnoce nce and as

to the puni shm ent t her efor , s houl d be conv ic ted. 20 Hernan dez a rg u e s , howev er, tha t “the record doe s not sho w thatthe Cou rt explained the da ngers of procee ding w ith a ben ch trial, nor the fact th at th e Court w ould d e t e rm in e p u n is h m e n t

. I n s t e a d , t h e Co u rtin fo rm e d [ h im ] t h a th e co u ld n o te le c tt o h a ve a j ur y dete rmi ne puni shment becau se he had prev iou sl y been conv ic ted a [s ic ] felon y .” 21 H er na nd ezd oe s n ots pe c i fy w ha t “ da ng ers ” th e tr i al c ou rt s ho ul d ha v e di s c us s ed w i th h i m.6

And t houg h the record does not re flectthat the tri al cour t told He rn andezthat i t w oul d be det ermin ing punishm ent , Hernan dez’s w ritten waiverin dicate s his aw aren ess of this
ma tter. As for the trial c o u rtinformin g Hernan dez “that he could no t elect to have a jury deter mine puni shment ,” thi s d id not occ ur . Her nandez direct s u s t o the foll ow ing pretr ial dis cus si on betw een t he St ate, the t ri al cour t, and hi s c ounse l, M s. Chu rc h: MS . CH UR CH : Y our H onor , I do hav e an ele cti on of puni shmentthatI thi nk is i n the fil e, bu t I ’m n ot sure, so I w il l hand t his to the c our t. [THE STATE]: Y our H o n o r, j u st for

the re cord, t hat mot ion does say ele cti on for puni shment by a jur y and appl ic ati on for probation. As the cour t i s a w are, he has a pr ior convic t io n an d w ith a prior conviction he is notelig ible for probati on. MS . C HU RC H: That’s w hy there i s n o aff ida v itatt ached

. T HE COURT: Okay. Since he’s not eligible, he doe sn’t get to m ake

that choi ce. MS . C HU RC H: No. W e dis ag re e w it h Her nandez ’s co ntent ion thatthe tr ial co urt’ s referenc e to him not g etti ng “t o m a k e t h a tc h o ic e ” re p re s e n t e d t h e c o u rti n s t ru c t in g h im t h a th e c o u ld n o te le c tt o h a ve the j ur y dete rmi ne puni shment

. It is cl ear to thi s Cou rt that the tr ial cour t w as re ferr ing to Her nandez ’s i nabi li ty

to br ing the is sue o f

p ro b a tion before a j ur y . Acc ordin g ly , w it h the
re cord sh o wing that the req uirements of arti cl e 1.1 3 w ere s ati sfied, and w it hout any legitimate basis for questionin g w het her the w aiver w as v olun tary and intelligent, we overrule Hernand ez’s f irst issue on ap pea l.

III. Fai lure to Consider Full Range of PunishmentH er nande z ’ s Br i efat 34. 22 7 In hi s t hird i ss ue, H er nandezarg ues that the tr ial cour t “d eni ed hi m due proces s” by faili ng to cons ide r the ful l ra ng e of av ail abl e punis hment w hen deter mini ng his sent ence. 22 Acc ordin g to Hernan dez , t he tr ial co urt fail ed to co nsi der the full ra ng e of puni shment becau se the t ri al cour

t had a pol icy of s entenc ing re peat off enders t o doubl e the ti me he or she ha d previously

bee n sen ten ced. Hernand ez thu s co n t end s thatthe trial court sent enced him to tw enty -four y ears’ impr is onment becau se he had prev iou sl y been sent enced to tw elv e y ears’ i mpri sonmentfor a di ff erent o ff ense. 1. T he Tr ial Rec or d At a pretr ial hear ing hel d on September 11, 2007, Her nandez ’s co u n se l had t he follo w ing ex chang e w it h the tr ial co urt: M S

. C H U R C H : An d Y o u r H o n o r , i s i t

— I h a v e tr i ed t o ex pl ai n to my

client th at i t’s the sta nda rd ope rating proced ure in this Court th a ti f

a person has gotten like tw elve y ears in pr is on before— THE C OU RT: I dou ble i t. MS . C HU RC H: Y ou doub le it

. T HE CO UR T : W h a t e ve r t h e h ig h e s to n e yo u h a ve , I d o u b le

. Ok a y? MS. CHUR CH: T han k y ou, Y our Hono r. TH E C O U R T: Y es, t h a n k y o u . Y ou’ re w elc ome. Askthe other

pr is oners i n j ail , t hey

w il l tel l y ou. Anythi ng el se? MS . C HU RC H: That’s al l w e hav e, J udg e. At a nother

pretr ial heari ng held on Nov ember 5, 2007, Ms . C hur ch ag ain di sc uss ed w it h the t rial co urt her

att empts to ex pla in to H er nandezthe cour t’ s p oli cy

of doubl ingEm phasi s add ed. 23 8 pun ishm ent . Th e trial court ma de n o att em pt to disavow Ms. C hurch ’s statem ent s. The tr ial co urt found Her nandezgui lty on Nov ember

15, 2007. T he tr ial co urt as ked Her nandezif

he had prev iou sl y

been sent enced to tw elv e y ears’ i mpri sonment , and he
answ ered i n the aff ir mati v e. The Stat e and Ms . C hur ch then ex press ed th eir opi nio ns as to w hat p uni shmentsh oul d be as ses sed ag ain st Her nandez ; t hei r re mark s e ncompas sed all the arg umentati on putforth on t he i ss ue of puni shment : [THE STATE]: Y our H onor , may the re cord als o re flect that the defendant has been charg ed i n an ind ic tmen t for ro bber y , and w e us ed th at pr ior co nv ic ti on i n tha t pr ior tr ip for tw elv e y ears a s a n enhan cementco unt, Y our H on or . So i t c ha ng es t he ran g e of p un i s hm en t from a s e c o n d d e gr e e ro b b e ry t o a f ir s td e gr e e ro b b e ry, pun ishab le by f iv e to nin ety-nine y ears, Your Hono r. Y our H onor , the defendan t ha s b een to the penitenti ar y b efor e for twel ve year

s. If you double tha t, tha t’ s twe nty-fo ur years , Your Honor. He als o has pick ed up another felony co nv ic ti on for robber

y i n the past, Your H onor , w as pla ced on p ro b a t i o n . B u tt h a ta l s o w a s a f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n . W e w o u l d a s k t h a t y o u e xt e n d a n d a d d s i x mo r e y ear s t o his pu ni s hm en t, a nd p un i s h th e de fen da ntfor n o less than thi rty

y ears for

robber y enhanc ed. MS . CH UR CH : Y our Honor , I thi nk for th is —a theft of $166 a nd a scuff le w ith a hu rt nose is—th irty y ears is a bit out rageous for tha t. One of our proble ms wi th th is case w as his pr iors, and the rule of thi s Cour t, and I amgoi

ng to ask th at youconside r the twelve yea rs ag a in , be c au s e he d oe s h av e— he d oes h av e s om e probl ems. . . .

. . . . T HE COURT: I w ill giv e him tw ent y -four years TDC. 23E x p a rt e B ro wn , 15 8 S

. W

. 3d 44 9, 45 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 05 ). 24 E a rle y

v . S ta te , 85 5 S

. W

. 2d 26 0, 26 2 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i , pe t

. di s m ’ d) (ci t ati on om i t t ed ). 25 Em phasi s add ed. 26 9 2. The Trial CourtFailed to Consider Full Range of Punishment The cour

t of cr imi nal appeal s h as hel d tha t “ a tr ial co urt’ s a rb it ra ry ref u sa l to
cons ide r the e nti re rang e of puni shmenti n a p arti cul ar case v iol ates due proces s.” “ Due 24 proces s re q uires a neut ra l and det ached hear ing body or off ic er . The Tex as Con sti tuti on requires no less. Nonet hele ss, in the a bsen ce of a cle ar sh owi ng to the co ntrary, w e w ill pr esume the t ri al jud g e w as a neut ra l and det ached off ic er .” 25 The pr esumpt ion thatthe tr ial j udg e w as a neut ra l and det ached off ic er has been
ov er come i n thi s c ase. Pr ior to tr ial , t he tr ial co urt ex p lic it ly informed H er nandezof it s in te n t t o as se ss pu n ish m e n t b y do u b lin g his hi ghe st , p re viou sly im p o se d se n te n ce , s ta ti n g: “W hatev er

the hig hestone you hav e, I double. Okay ?” The tr ial court m ade it cl ear

to 26 Her nandezthati t w oul d be followi ng i ts tradi ti on of doubl ing a de fendant’s prev iou s sent ence, by

di re cti ng hi m to “ [a]s k t he other pr is oners in jai l, they w il l tel l y ou.” The t ri al court’s ad here nce to its senten cing policy w as clear to th e prose cuto r and Herna nde z ’s
cou n s e l

— b o t h o f t h e m d i s c u s s e d t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s p o l i c y i n t h e c o u rs e o f d e b a t i ng pu ni s hm en t. L as tl y , th e tr i al c ou rt’ s i mp os i ti on o f a tw en ty - fou r y ea r se nt en c e c on for ms w it h i ts sta ted p oli cyo f d o u bli ng a de fendant’s hi g hest , prev iou sl y i mposed sent ence, w hich for Hernan dez w as tw elve y ears. Base d on these facts, it is clear thatthe trial court
ar ri v ed at Hern andez ’s punish ment byrel y ing on an arbi trar y mathemat ic al formula , rather than a c areful and fair

co nsi derati on of the ev ide nce re lev ant t o puni shment

. This bei ng the c ase, the tr ia l co u rt ’s conduc t i s n ot i n ac cordance w it h the due course of the l awS e e F i e l d in g v . S ta te , 7 1 9 S .W .2 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 8 (T e x . A p p .– D a l l a s 1 9 8 6 , p e t. re f’d ) (G u i tta rd , C .J ., 27 di s s en t i ng ).

M a rin v . S ta te , 8 5 1 S .W .2 d 2 7 5 , 2 7 9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ), o v e r ru le do n o th e r

g ro u n d s b y

C a in 28 v . S ta te , 94 7 S

. W

. 2d 26 2, 26 4 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 97 ).

I d. 29 B l u e v . S ta te , 41 S

. W

. 3d 12 9, 12 9-3 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 00 ) ( pl ura l i t y op . ). 30 10 becau se (1 ) iteffect iv ely ex cl udes ev ide nce re le van t to p uni shment ; ( 2) i t precl udes the
cour t from cons ide ri ng the full ra ng e of puni shmentpresc ri bed by l aw ; and ( 3) i t dep ri v es the d efendant of a fair

and impar

ti al tr ibu nal at the p uni shmentphas e. 27 3. Is the Trial Court’s Error Wai v ed? The r ig hts of an ac cus ed are separated int o three cat eg or ies w it h reg ard to w aiv er of those ri g hts : (1 ) absol ute req uirements and prohi bit ion s w hic h c annot be w aiv ed; ( 2) ri g hts of li ti g ants w hic h must be impl emented by the s y ste m unl ess ex press ly w aiv ed; a nd (3) ri ghts of

litig ant s w hich are to be imp lem ent ed u pon request. “ Rig h t s wh ic h are 28
w aiv abl e onl y , as w ell as a b sol ute s y ste micreq uirements and prohi bit ion s, canno t be made subje ct t o r u les of procedu ra l default becau se, by defini ti on, t hey

are notforfeit abl e.” 29 Acc ordin g ly , i f w e are to find, a s t he St ate s ug g est s w e s houl d, that Her nandezw aiv ed th e tr ial co urt’ s e rror

by fail ing to obj ectto his puni shment a t tr ia l, we m ustfirst find th at Her nandezi s c omplai nin g of a r ig ht t hat fal ls i nto t he t hird c ateg or y ar ti cul ated in Marin (i.e., tha t it is a rig ht w hich is to be implem ent ed u pon request). In Bl ue v

. St ate , t h e c o u rt o f c r i mi n a l a p p e a l s r e v e rs e d a c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d on comments made by

the tr ia l co u rt dur ing v oir di re ev en th oug h Bl ue fail ed to obj ectat tr ial

. Spec ific all y , t he c our t w as apol og iz ing to a g ro up of prospe cti v e jurors for their l ong 30 waitan d st a te d , a m o n g ot h e r th in gs, th e fo llo wing:Id

. at 130

. 31 I d. at 132

. 32 11 [This ca se]

. . . is a s it uati on w here the att or ney has been speak ing to his cl ien t abo ut w hat does he w ant to do. And w hen y ou are on the b utton li ke thes e c ases , i t’ s a q uest ion

. Frankl y , an off er has been made by

the Sta te or do I go to tri al. And he has bee n back and fo rth so I f inally told h im I h a d e n o u gh o f

that , w e are going to trial. Y ou h ave been sitting out here and t his i s h old ing up my doc ketand I c an’ t g et an ythi ng done unti l w e k now if w e are g oin g to tr ial or not. Frankl y , obv iou sl y , I prefer the defendant to ple ad becau se it g iv es us more ti me to g et thin g s d one and I' m sure notg oin g to come o ut he re and si t. Sor ry , th e c a se w ent a w ay and w e w ere al l tr

y ing to w or k t ow ard tha t and sav e y ou ti me and c ost of ti me, w hic h y ou hav e been si tti ng h e re a nd I apol og iz e aboutthat

. 31 A maj or ity

of the c our

t conc lud ed that the t ri al cour t’ s c omments cons ti tuted rev ersi ble er ro r despi te B lue ’s fail ur e to obj ectat tr ial , al thoug h the j udg es did not ag re e as to the reason wh y. Four of

the cou rt’s jud ges co nclud ed th at th e trial court’s state me nts ta inted Blue’s pr esumpt ion of inn ocenc e and thus co nst it uted fundamental er ro r th a t req uired no obj ect ion

. J udg e Keas ler w ro te a conc ur ri ng opi nio n i n w hic h he ag re ed th at B lue di d not 32
w aiv e hi s c omplai nt; he reason ed, how ev er , that thes e s tatement s s how ed par ti ali ty and th u s vio la te d Blu e ’s a b so lu te righ t t o an im p a rt ia l ju d ge, st a ti n g: Regardless of

w het her a vi olatio n of the pre sum ption o f

i n n o c ence is a v iol ati on of an ab sol ute r ig ht, iti s cl ear to me that the v iol ati on of the r ig ht t o an im partia l judge is an a bsolu te right. The judge’s comm ent s in this case v iol ated that ri g ht.

. . . .

. . . The tr ial jud g e w ent so far as to s ay thathe w oul d prefer t hat t he def end antplead . W hy else w ould a ju dge w anta defend antto plea d un less he h ad p re -j u d ged the de fend ant ’s g uilt? W hile w e rarelysee suchI d. at 13 8-3 9 (K ea s l er, J., co nc urri ng ) ( c i t ati on s an d fo otno t es om i t t ed ). 33 S e e A b dy g a p p a ro v a v . S ta te , 24 3 S

. W

. 3d 1 91 , 20 9-1 0 (T ex . A pp . –S an A nton i o 2 00 7, pe t

. ref’ d); 34 G e n tryv . S ta te , N o. 06- 05- 00237
- C R , 200 6 T ex. A pp. LE X I S 2923, at * 5 ( T ex. A pp. –T exar k ana Apr

. 12, 200 6, n o p e t.) (m e m . o p ., n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ); R o d rig u e z v . S ta te , N o. 08- 03- 00497
- C R , 200 5 T ex. App. L E X IS 7 7 4 6 , a t *1 1 -1 2 (T e x . A p p .– E l P a s o S e p t. 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.) (n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ); Jaeni cke v . S ta te , 1 0 9 S .W .3 d 7 9 3 , 7 9 6 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 3 , p e t. re f’d ); B ro o k s v . S ta te , N o. 12- 00- 00118
- C R , 200 2 T ex. App. LEX I S 2160, at * 16- 18 ( T ex. A pp. –T y l er M ar . 20, 2002, no pet

. ) (n ot desi gnat ed for pu bl i c ati on ).

See Jae ni cke , 1 0 9 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 6 ; b u t s e e B ru m i t v . S ta te , N o. 0 7-0 3-0462- C R , 200 4 T ex. App. 35 LEX I S 10893 , at * 4- 6 ( T ex. App. –Am ar i l l o Dec. 2, 200 4) ( f i ndi ng t hat app el l ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o obj ect at t r i al wai v ed h is r ig h t t o c o m p la in a b o u t t r ia l c o u r t’s r e f u s a l to c o n s id e r th e f u ll r a n g e o f p u n is h m e n t, d e s p ite a p p e lla n t’s c o n te n ti o n th a t t h e tri a l c o u rt’ s re fu s a l c o n s ti tu te d fu n d a m e n ta l e rr o r) , af f ’ d on other

gr ounds , 206 S. W

. 3d 6 39 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 06 ). 12 sta tements as thes e, t here w il l be a fewcases w here the j udg e’s st atements w hen v iew ed o bjectively are so egregi ous as to rend er him bia sed. This is one of those cases. No matter

w hat t he ev ide nce w as ag ain st hi m, Blue had a ri g ht t o an impar ti al jud g e. The r ig ht t o an impar ti al ju dg e is so sac re d that th e U nit ed Sta tes Su prem e Court ha s decla red a v iolation of this rig ht to be “structura l” error. T he prese nce of a b iased ju dge on the b ench is a structu ral defect in th e tr i al me c ha ni s m. A l th ou g h, a s t he d i s s en t po i nt s o ut , th ere are s om e “s tr uct ural” er ro rs thatca n be forfeited, I do notthink that the r ig ht t o an impar ti al jud g e s houl d be a r ig ht t hat t he defenda n t can forfeit. Thi s r ig ht shou ld be includ ed in th e v eryselect class of abso lute rights. Furthe rmore , I believe thatour prior case s holdin g an o bjectio n is re q uired to preser

v e er ro r are dis ti ng uis habl e from thi s cas e becau se the t ri al judge’s com me nts w ere “so e gregious” a s t o dee m him biased , and beca use the rightv iol ated—the r ig ht t o an impar ti al jud g e—i s o ne of the absol ute r i g ht s t ha t do n otreq ui r e an o bj ec ti on u nd er Marin

. T his case is highly uni q ue and li ti g a n ts s h o uld not v iew thi s h old ing as an i nv it ati on to appeal w ithou t ma king proper, tim ely obje ctions. 33 Par tl y rel y ing on J udg e Keas ler ’s co ncur re nce in Blue , f ive co u rt s o f a p p e a ls h a ve det ermin ed th at th e rig ht to an imp artial judge is an ab solute requirem ent

. One of these 34
co u rt s, t h e Firs t Co u rtof Ap p e a ls, ha s o b se rved th a t t h e righ t t o an im p a rt ia l ju d ge articulat ed in Jud ge Keasler’s concu rrence sho uld en com p a s s a c riminal ap pellan t’s compl ain t t hat a tr ial co urt refused to co nsi der the full ra ng e of puni shment

. 35See Bl ue , 41 S

. W

. 3d at 13 9 (K ea s l er, J., co nc urri ng ). 36 See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 44

. 29 (b) ( V ern on 20 06 ). 37 13 W e find that a defendant has an absol ute ri g ht to an impar ti al jud g e not onl y

w hen gui ltan d in n o ce n ce are a t issu e , bu t a lso w h e n pu n ish m e n t is atiss u e . Gu id e d by Ju d ge Keas ler ’s co ncur re nce in Blue and the F irst Cou rtof Appeal s’ reason ing i n Jaen icke , we f urthe r find tha t a def end ant ma y com plain fo r the f irst time on app eal ab outa trial court’s
re fusal (i .e., l ack

of impar ti ali ty ) to cons ide r the ful l ra ng e of puni shment—s o l ong as the tr ial j udg e’s co nducti s s o eg re g iou s a s t o deem t he j udg e bi ased on the matter of puni shment

. In t he i nst ant cas e, the tri al jud g e’s bi as and par ti ali ty st emmed from her 36 str ic t adh erence to an i ll -c oncei v e d mathemat ic al formula thatw as meant t o formul ate a puni shmentthatsa ti sfied the int erest s of j ust ic e. No mathemati cal formul a, ho w ev er , c an ever i nte llig ent ly

satisf y those interests. M oreo v er, the trial j udge’s com me nts w ere so egregi ous th at th ey clearlyev iden ced th e judge’s bias on pun ishm ent . As prev iously sta te d , t h e ju d ge t o ld He rn a n d e z, “W h a te ver t h e hi ghe ston e [p re viou s se n te n ce ] you ha ve, I d o u b le

. Ok a y? ” T h e ju d ge d id n o tst a t e t h a tsh e “m i g h t , ” “ m a y , ” o r “ wo u ld p ro b a b ly”
ass e ss H er nandez ’s puni shmentby doubl ing hi s h ig hestprev iou s s entenc e; rather , t he ju d ge m a d e h e r i n t e n d e d p la n fo r a s s e s s in g p u n is h m e n tu n e qu ivo c a l. Ac c o rd in gl y, we reject the State ’s conte ntion that Hernan dez w aived his com plaine d-of error, and sustain Hernan dez’s third issue on ap pea l. IV. Conclus ion The ju dg ment of conv ic ti on for robber y is aff ir med, butthe jud g ment i s rev ersed and the c ause is remanded for a ne w tr ial as to puni shment

. Con si ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion , t he 3714

tr ial co urt s houl d reass ess an a ppropr iat e s entenc e w it hin the enti re puni shmentrang e.

LINDA REYNA Y

AÑEZ, J u s t i c e

Publ is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this the 2 8th d ay

of Aug ust , 200 8.