## COURT OF A PPEAL S

EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS

ELPASO, TEXAS

SI L AS SI MOENOE PANZ U,
a/k/a SI L AS S. P ANZ U,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08-10-00111- CR

Appea l from

213th District Court

of Tar rant County , Texas

(TC # 1053499D)

O P I N I O N

Silas Simoenoe Panzu appea ls the trial cour t’s order revoking community

supervision and

adjudicating him g uilty of delivery of a controlled subst ance , one gra m or m ore but less than four

g rams of coca ine. On appea l, Appellant arg ues the adjudication proce eding violated his due proce ss

rig hts unde r both the United States Constit ution a nd the Texas Constitution bec ause the trial court

revoke d his community supervision and assessed punishment without holding a separ ate hear ing on

the question of punishment. For the re asons that follow, we aff irm.

F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND

On Marc h 23, 2007, Appellant pled g uilty to the offe nse of delivery of a controlled substance,

one gra m or m ore but less t h an four g rams of coca ine, i n exchang e for defe rre d adjudication with

four y ear s’ community supervision. Two y ear s later, on J une 12, 2009

, the State filed its First

Amended Second Petition to Procee d to Adjudication. I n four para g raphs, the petition alleg ed that

Appellant violated the conditions of his community supervisio n i n t h e following way s: (1) on or

about November 7, 2008, Appellant committed the offe nse of possession of marijuana

, two ounces

## or less; (2) on or about J une 3, 2 0 09, Appellant g ave a fictitious name, to wit: Tahir Nef erma at

El Be y , to a p o l i ce office r who had lawfully arr ested or detained him; (3) Appellant failed to

1



## co m p l et e h i s court order ed community service hours; and (4) Appellant failed to repor t to his

community

supervision offic er a s scheduled dur ing the month of May 2009. 2



## On Marc h 18, 2010, the trial court held a hear ing on the State’s petition. Appellant pled not

true as to all four counts. At the hear ing, the State prese nted six witnes s es , an d the defe nse 3



## prese nted two witnesses, including Appellant, who testified on his ow n behalf

. At the conclusion

of the ev i d en ce , and afte r final arg uments by both sides, the trial court found the alleg ations in

para g raphs one and two not true and the alleg ations in counts three and four true. The trial court then

adjudicate d Appellant g uilty of the unde rly ing posse ssion charg e, and immediate ly sentenc ed him

to two y ear s’ imprisonment.

Appellant filed a motion for a new trial alleg ing: ( 1) that the ve rdict is contra ry to the law

an d evidenc e; and (2) that he rec eived ineffe ctive assistance of counsel based on his attorney ’s

failure to timely inform him as to new alleg ations. Although no ruling on the motion for a new trial

appea rs in the rec ord, the motion was overr uled by opera

tion of law. See Tex.R.App.P

. 21.8(a)

, (c)

.

This appea l follows.

SEPARA TE PUN ISHMENT H EARING

A t t h e h e a r i n g , A p p e l l a n t c l a i m e d t h e n a m e S i l a s S i m o e n o e P a n z u i s a l e g a l f i c t i o n a n d h i s a c t u a l n a m e i s 1

T a h i r N e f

e r m a a t E l B e y

. H e c l a i m s t o b e a n a u t h o r i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r S i l a s P a n z u , j u s t a s t h e S t a t e ’ s a t t o r n e y i s a n

a u t h o r i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r T e x a s

. A t t h e h e a r i n g h e b r o u g h t s e v e r a l d o c u m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g a p a s s p o r t i s s u e d b y t h e

w o r l d s e r v i c e a u t h o r i t y t o T a h i r N e f e r m a a t E l B e y , s h o w i n g h i s M o o r i s h s t a t u s , o r t h a t h i s n a t i o n a l i t y i s n o w t h a t o f “ a
M o o r , a n i n d i g e n o u s a b o r i g i n a l o f t h e c o n t i n e n t a l U n i t e d S t a t e s

. ” H o w e v e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e c i d e d t o p r o c e e d u n d e r t h e

r e g i s t e r e d n a m e o f S i l a s S i m o e n o e P a n z u a b s e n t a n y o f f i c i a l d o c u m e n t s f

r o m t h e S t a t e o f T e x a s s h o w i n g a n a m e c h a n g e

.

A p p e l l a n t w a s r e q u i r e d t o c o m p l e t e 2 4 0 h o u r s o f c o m m u n i t y s e r v i c e a t n o l e s s t h a n t w e n t y h o u r s p e r m o n t h 2

a s d i r e c t e d b y t h e c o u r t o r s u p e r v i s i o n o f f i c e r

.

A s t o c o u n t t h r e e , A p p e l l a n t s t a t e d : “ I ’ m g o i n g t o h a v e t o

- - I d o n ’ t w i s h t o a n s w e r

. ” T h e c o u r t t h e n e n t e r e d 3

a p l e a o f n o t t r u e o n h i s b e h a l f

.

## I n two issues, Appellant complains that the trial court err ed by failing to conduct a separ ate

punishment hear ing afte r finding alleg ations three and four to be true. Acc ording to Appellant, the

tri al co urt’s failure to hold a punishment hear ing deprive d him of the opportunity to exercise his

fundame ntal rig ht to put on evidence in mitigation of punishment. The State initially responds by

asser ting that Appellant failed to proper ly prese rve his complaints for Appellate revie w. We ag ree

.

I n g ener al, a party must make a timely

, specific

, objection and obt ai n a ruling on the

objection in or der to preser ve a c omplaint for appe llate revie w. T E X 

## .R.A P P 

## .P. 33.1( a); Pearson v.

State

, 994 S.W .2d 176, 179 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Howeve r, t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls has

rec og nized an exception to the g ener al rule in cer tain limit ed circ umstances. See Issa v. State

, 826

S.W .2d 159 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992).

I n Issa

, the trial court revoke d the defe ndant’s defe rre d adjudication probation, adjudicate d

the defe ndant g uilty

, and imposed defe ndant’s sentenc e in one ruling

, and then left the bench without

g iving the defe ndant an opportunity to object to the actions taken. Is sa , 826 S.W .2d at 160. I ssa

later m o v ed fo r n ew t rial on the g round that the trial court had err ed in failing to provide him an

opportunity to prese nt evidenc e in mitigation of punishment. Id

. The Court of C rimina l Ap peals

looked to the follo wi n g fairness lang uag e contained in Duhart v. State

, 668 S.W .2d 384

(Tex.Crim.App. 1984):

## [f] airne ss would dictate that a defe ndant be acc orded an opport u n i t y t o offe r

appropr iate evidenc e in mitigation of punishment afte r the revoc ation of ‘proba tion’
and the adjudication of g uilt and befor e the assessment of punishment if such
evidenc e has not alre ady been elicited during the proce eding s, particula rly if the
defe ndant re quests the opportunity

.

Issa

, 826 S.W .2d at 161, citing Duhart

, 668 S.W .2d at 387. The co u rt then held that when a trial

court finds a violation a s alleg ed by the State true a

nd adjudicate s a pre viously defe rre d finding of

g uilt, the court must conduct a separ ate “sec ond phase” to deter mine punishment. Issa

, 826 S.W .2d

at 161.

I n Pearson

, the court acknow ledg ed that under the circ umstances in Issa, a complaint could

be prese rved by raising it for the first time in a motion for a new trial. Pearson

, 994 S.W .2d at 179.

But Pearson also modified Issa’s insistence on a separ ate punishment hear ing concluding that it is

immaterial that the opportunity to prese nt evidenc e came befor e the actua l words of adjudication as

long a s the defe ndant had the oppor tunity to present e vidence during the proc eeding s. Id

.

Her e, Appellant never reque sted a separ ate punishment hear ing and did not object when the

tr i al court proce eded to sentenc ing immediately afte r adjudicating him g uilty

. Appellant

acknow ledg es his failure to object, but contends his situation place s him in the same position as Issa,

such that his failure to object did not waive his complaint on appea l. Even if Issa applies, Appellant

still failed to pre serve err or beca use he did not raise a complaint about t he trial court’s pr ocedur e

in his motion for new trial. He had three opportunities to do so. He could have reque sted a separ ate

punishment hear ing, he could have objected to the lack of a punishment hear ing when the trial court

adjudicate d him g uilty

, and he could have moved for a new trial on that basis. Be cause he did not 4

E v e n i f A p p e l l a n t h a d r a i s e d t h e i s s u e i n h i s m o t i o n f o r a n e w t r i a l

, h i s a r g u m e n t i s u n p e r s u a s i v e

. U p o n 4

r e v o c a t i o n i n t h e c a s e a t b a r A p p e l l a n t w a s g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t

, a n d d i d p r e s e n t

, e v i d e n c e d u r i n g t h e

p r o c e e d i n g

. W h i l e a t r i a l c o u r t m u s t p r o v i d e a d e f e n d a n t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t p u n i s h m e n t e v i d e n c e , a l l t h a t i s

r e q u i r e d i s t h a t a d e f

e n d a n t b e g i v e n a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e ; i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t a p u n i s h m e n t h e a r i n g b e h e l d a t a d i f

f e r e n t t i m e o r d a t e

. S e e E u l e r v

. S t a t e , 2 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d 8 8

, 9 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 7 ) ; s e e a l s o M o r r i s v

. S t a t e , N o

. 0 6

- 0 3

- 0 0 0 6 9

- C R

, 2 0 0 3 W L 2 2 7 6 3 2 1 4 * 2 ( T e x

. A p p

. - - T e x a r k a n a N o v

. 2 4

, 2 0 0 3

, n o p e t

. ) ; N o r m a n v

. S t a t e , 8 4 4

## avail himself of any o ne of these opportunities, he has failed to prese rve the issue for appellate

revie w. See T E X 

## .R.A P P 

## .P. 33.1; Euhler , 218 S.W .3d at 92; Vidaurri v

. State

, 49 S.W .3d 880, 886

(Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Having overr uled both issues for revie w, we aff irm the judgme nt of the trial

court. 5



## J uly 6, 2011
ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice

Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

.

(Do Not Publish)

S

. W

. 2 d 9 0 3

, 9 0 4 ( T e x

. A p p

. - - T e x a r k a n a 1 9 9 2

, n o p e t

. ) ( c a s e s n o t i n g t h a t w h i l e I s s a r e l a x e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f a

c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s o b j e c t i o n , a d e f e n d a n t i s s t i l l r e q u i r e d t o b r i n g h i s o r h e r c o m p l a i n t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s a t t e n t i o n i n s o m e f a s h i o n t o p r e s e r v e e r r o r f o r r e v i e w )

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h e w a s d e n i e d t h e a b i l i t y t o p r e p a r e a n d p r e s e n t c e r t a i n

m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e i s s i m i l a r l y u n p e r s u a s i v e

. S e e E u h l e r , 2 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t 9 1 ( “ P a r t o f b e i n g p r e p a r e d f o r a r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g i s b e i n g p r e p a r e d t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e a n d a r g u m e n t o n t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r d i s p o s i t i o n i n t h e e v e n t t h a t

t h e t r i a l c o u r t f

i n d s t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f p r o b a t i o n h a v e b e e n v i o l a t e d

. ” )

.

A l t h o u g h n o t i d e n t i f

i e d a s a s e p a r a t e i s s u e , A p p e l l a n t a l s o c o n t e n d s i n h i s b r i e f t h a t e v e n i f w e f i n d t h a t h e 5

f a i l e d t o p r e s e r v e e r r o r , w e a r e s t i l l p e r m i t t e d t o r e c o g n i z e f u n d a m e n t a l e r r o r i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s u n d e r T e x a s R u l e o f

E v i d e n c e 1 0 3 a n d s h o u l d d o s o h e r e

. F o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , w e d o n o t f i n d f u n d a m e n t a l e r r o r o c c u r r e d a n d w e

n e e d n o t a d d r e s s t h e s a m e a r g u m e n t a g a i n u n d e r a d i f f e r e n t n a m e

.