1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 06- 450- CR
DE R E K S ANF OR D P HE L P S AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 2 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A p p e l l a n t D e rekS a n fo rd P h e l p s a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c ti o n for i n d e c e n c yw i th
a c h ild b ye x p o s u r e . In h is s o le p o in t , h e a r g u e s t h a th e w a s d e p r iv e d o fa f a ir and i m part i al t r i bun al att he pun i shm enthear i ng becau se t he t r i al j udg e f ai l ed to c o n s i d e r th e fu l l ra n g e o f p u n i s h m e n t b yi m p ro p e rl yh o l d i n g a p p e l l a n t’s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y du r i ng t he puni sh m entpha seag ai ns thi m an d t hen as se ss i ng p u n i s h me n tn e a rt h e t o p o ft h e p u n i s h me n tr a n g e . We a f f i r m.2 B a c k g rou n d F a c ts O n August31, 2006 , a j u r y c onvi ct ed app el l antoft he of f ens e o f i n d e c e n c yw i th a c h i l d b ye x p o s u re . S eeT EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 21 . 11 ( V er non 20 03 ) . A l t hou gh app el l antt est i f i ed dur i ng t he gui l t / i nno cence phase oft he t r i a l , h e d i d no tt e s t i f y a tt he p un i s hm e nth e a r i n g . O n D e c e m be r8, 2 0 0 6 , th e tr i a l co u rtas se ss e d p u n i sh m e n t at eigh t ye a rs’ co n fi n e m e n t. S t andar d ofRev i ew T o p res e rve a c o m p l a i n t f o r ou r rev i e w , a p a rt ym u st h a v e p res e n ted to t h e t r ia l c o u rta t im e lyre q u e s t , o b je c t io n , o rm o t i o n t h a ts t a t e s t h e s p e c if ic gr oundsf ort he des i r ed r ul i ng i f t hey ar e n otap par entf r om t he con t extoft he
re q u e s t, o b j e c ti o n , o r m o ti o n . T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Mo sleyv. S tate , 983 S .W .2 d 2 4 9 , 2 6 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), c ert. den i e d , 526 U. S. 107 0 ( 199 9) . Furt her , t he t r i al cou rtm us tha ve r ul ed on t he r equ es t , obj ec t i on, orm ot i on, ei t herex pr es sl y ori m pl i ci t l y, ort he com pl ai ni n g p a rty m us tha ve o b j e c te d to th e tri a l c o u rt’s re fu s a l to ru l e . T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(2 ); Mendez

v. S tate , 138 S . W . 3d 334, 341 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 4) . Pr es ervat i on ofer r or i s a s ys t em i c r equ i r em entt h a t th i s c o urts houl d r evi ew on i t s ow n m ot i on. A rchie v. State, 2 2 1 S .W .3 d 6 9 5 , 6 9 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Jones v. State, 9 4 2 S .W .2 d 1 , 2 n .1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ).3 A n a ly s is A f t ers ent enc i ng a ppe l l ant , t he t r i al j udge s t at ed t he f ol l ow i ng: [ Th e C our t ] : A ny l egal r eason w hy I shoul dn’ tsent ence hi m at

t hi s t i m e? [M r. R a n n e fi e l d ]: N o , Y o u r H o n o r. [ The Court ] : I ’ l l se nt enc e you t o ei g h t yea r s i n t hi s ca sean d

I ’l l d i rec t yo u to th e s h e ri ff o f t h i s c o u n ty to del i veryou to the Di r ec t orf oryou t o s erve out yourt i m e. I ’ l l gi ve you cr edi tf ort i m e s erved . T h e i n te re s ti n g th i n g a b o u t th i s c a s e i s th a t th e re w e re a c tu a l l ytw o c a s e s , tw o l i ttle g i rl s w e re i nvol ved i n t hi s , w hi ch i s very s er i ous . And b a s e d u p o n y o u rv ie w , y o u h a v e d e n ie d ita ll al ong . Y ou st i l l even t o t he pr esent ence i nvest i gat ory o u have deni ed t hatt hateven h a p p e n e d . S o b a s ic a llyw h a ty o u ’r e s a y in g is th a t th e l i ttle g i rl s w e re l y i n g a n d th a t y o u w e re her e b a s i c a l l y t o t ak e c ar e o ft he m ot heran d t hos e c hi l dr en. A nd put t i ng you on pr oba t i on and r equ i r i ng y ou to g o t hr oug h al l oft he var i ous sex of f ender t r ea t m entpro g ram s, i tj us tw oul d notha ve w o r k e d . T h e f ir s tt h in g a p e r s o n h a s t o d o is adm i tt hat he di d, i n f act , com m i t t hese of f enses and t hen i t ’ s ope ned up f oryou t o a ddr es s t he si t uat i on, f ol l ow th e r ul es , an d t r y t o t ur n yo ur l i f e ar oun d. Y ou go i n deny i ng i t , i tneverw or ks. I m e a n , t h e yc a n ’ t e v e n a s s e s s y o u p r o p e r ly w h e n y o u g o i n d e n y i n g b e c a u se y o u h a v e to t ak e t hes e v ar i ous t es t s. So you w oul d notha ve been a g o o d candi dat e f ora pr obati on. These c a s e s th e m s e l v e s a re s o s e ri o u s , I j u s t d o n ’t4 t hi nk t hata pr obati on w oul d have been i n or der i n t hi s part i cul arcase. A l l r i ght. Th at ’ s goi ng t o be [ t he] or deroft he C o u rt . [M r. P o e ]: T h a n ky o u , Y o u r H o n o r. H er e, app el l ant di d not obj ec t t o t he se nt enc e a tt r i al ; t her ef or e, an y e r r or i s w a i v e d . T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Mosley , 9 8 3 S .W .2 d a t 2 6 5 ; Thomps on
v. S ta te, 2 4 3 S .W .3 d 7 7 4 , 7 7 5 -7 6 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 7 , p e t. fi l e d ). A ppe l l ant , how eve r , r el i es on Blu e v. S ta te, i n w hi ch t he cour tofcr i m i nal
a p p e a l s he l d t hat t he l ac k of an obj ec t i on w i l l not w ai ve a si m i l ar er r o r. 4 1 S .W .3 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 2 -3 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (p l u ra l i tyo p .); see T EX . R. E VID . 103 ( d) . I n Bl

u e, a m aj or i t y oft he cou rtofcr i m i nal a p pea l s–i n a pl ur al i t y a nd i n c o n c u rri n g o p i n i o n s – u p h e l d th e g e n e ra l ru l e th a t e r r o r i n a tri a l c o u rt’s
c o m m e n ts to a j u ryi s w a i v e d a b s e n t a ti m e l yo b j e c ti o n . Blu e, 4 1 S . W . 3d at 13 3 ( “Thi s case i s hi ghl y uni q ue and l i t i gantsshoul d not vi ew t hi s hol di ng as a n i nv i t a t i on t o a pp e a l w i t ho utm a k i ng p r op e r , t i m e l y o b j e c ti on s . ” ) , 134 (M a n s fi e l d , J . c o n c u rri n g ) (s a m e ), 1 3 9 (K e a s l e r, J . c o n c u rri n g ) (sa m e ); see al so D a venp o rt

v. S tate , N o. 02- 05- 001 70- C R, 2006 W L 1653 320 , at*3 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h Ju n . 1 5, 2006 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( m em . op. , notde si gna t ed f or publ i ca t i on) . The pl ur al i t y op i ni on i n Blue w e n to n t o h o ld , h o w e v e r , t h a tin t h a t p a rti c ul arca set he t r i al co urt ’ s com m ent s exp l ai ni ng t o t he j ur y t hatt he2 ... Bec aus e t her e i s no m aj o ri ty o p i n i on i n Blue , i ti s notbi ndi ng

p re c e d e n t. S e ePe a rs o nv. S ta te, 994 S. W . 2d 176 , 177 n. 3 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 9 ). 5 def end antatt em pt ed t o e nt eri nt o a pl ea ba r gai n w i t h t he St at e a nd t hatt he t r i al co urtw oul d ha ve pr ef er r ed a g u i l ty p l ea “ vi t i at ed t he pr es um pt i on of i n n o c e n c e ” b e fo re th e v e n i re a n d c o n s ti tu t e d f u n d a m e n ta l e rro r. Blu e, 41 S .W .3 d a t 1 3 3 ; se e a l soD a ve np o rt, 20 06 W L 16 53 32 0, at*3 . Such f unda m ent al er r ordi d notr equ i r e p r es ervat i on byobj ec t i on. Blu e, 41 S. W . 3d 2
a t 1 3 3 ; s e ea l

s o D a venp o rt, 2 0 0 6 W L1 6 5 3 3 2 0 , a t * 3 . I n t hi s ca se , unl i ke i n Blu e, t he t r i al co urt ’ s com m ent s di d nott ai nt
a p p e l l a n t’s p re s u m p ti o n o f i n n o c e n c e i n fro n t o f a j u ry . In fa c t, th e tri a l c o u rt’s
com m ent s w er e m ade dur i ng t he pun i shm entst age a fter t h e ju r y h a d f o u n d h im gui l t y a nd a fter t he tr i a l co urt had as se ss ed pu n i sh m ent ; t he j ur y ha d a l r ea dy b e e n d i s m i s s e d . C f. Bl u e, 41 S . W . 3d at 13 3. Becau se appel l ant di d not obj ect t o hi s se nt enc e a nd be ca us e t he al l ege d er r orw as notf unda m ent al , ap pel l ant fa i l e d to p re s e rv e th i s i s s u e fo r re v i e w . S ee T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); D a venp o rt, 2 0 0 6 W L1 6 5 3 3 2 0 , a t * 3 . F u rt h e rm o re, t h e tr i a l co u rt ’s co m m e n ts show t hati t w as consi der i ng st at em ent s m ade by app el l antt o t he pr esent ence i nvest i gat i on off i cer , notappel l ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o t est i f y at p u n ishm ent ; t hose st at em ent s r el at ed t o w het herap pel l antco ul d be r eha bi l i t at ed orw het herhe6

w as a good ca ndi dat e f orpr oba t i on, w hi ch app el l antha d s pec i f i ca l l y r equ es t ed. Th us, t he t r i al court ’ s com m ent s di d not bear on appel l ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o t est i f y at t h e p u n is h m e n th e a r in g o rs h o w t h a t a p p e lla n t w a s d e n ie d a n im p a rt ia l t r ib u n a l. S e eJa sp er v. S ta te, 61 S. W . 3d 41 3, 42 1 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 01 ) . Ther ef or e,
w e o v e rr u l e ap p e l l a n t’ s s o l e p o i n t. C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a p p e l l a n t’s s o l e i s s u e , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON J U S T I C E PA N EL B: LI V I N G STO N , H O LM A N , an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 24, 2008