### NUM BER 13-09- 0003 1-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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG

VER ONIC A

C A NT U, A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 1 48t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Garza M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t Ve ro nic a C antu chal len g es her se ntenc e of tw o y ear s' co n finement impos ed by

the tr ial court af ter

the re v ocat ion of

her c ommunit y

su per v is ion

. By

one is sue, Can tu compl ain s that the t ri al cour t' s s entenc e v iol ates her due pr oces s r ig hts under the United State s Constitu tion b ecau se the pun ishm ent impo sed e xc e e d s t hat w hich is2

neces sar

y to acc ompli sh the s entenci n g o b je ct iv es of the Tex as Penal C ode. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1. 02 ( Ve r no n 20 03 )

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On A ug ust 13, 2008, Can tu w as conv ic ted b y a j ur y of poss ess ion of les s t han one gr am of cocaine , a state jail felo n y f or w hich th e ma x imu m sen ten ce is tw o y ears' inc ar cer ati on and a $10, 000 fine. See T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481.115 (a )- (b ) (V er non Supp. 2009) ; T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 12.35( a) -( b) (Ver non Su pp. 2 009)

. The tr ial
cour t as ses sed puni shment a t two years ' confine ment i n the Sta te J ail D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep ar tment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce (S JD -TD CJ ), or der ed th e s entenc e s uspen ded and that Can tu be p la ce d o n community su per v is ion for t w o y ear s, and i mposed a $500 fine and $14 0 i n r est it uti on. On Dec ember 15, 2008, the Stat e filed a moti on to re v oke Cantu 's community super v is ion , al leg ing that C antu v iol ated the c ondi ti ons of her pr obati on by : (1 ) commi tti ng the o ff ense of ass aul t on September 30, 2008; (2 ) faili ng to re por t t o her pr obati on officer
as dir ect ed; ( 3) fail ing to re por t her ch ang e of addr ess , job, or j ob s tatus to her

pr obati on off ic er w it hin tw enty -four

hour s; and (4 ) faili ng to make p ay ments on th e fine, r est it uti on, and mont hly

su per v is ion f e e a ss e ss e d a s p art of her puni shment

. The tr ial co urt hel d a hear ing on t he St ate' s mot ion , at w hic h C antu plea ded "t ru e" to all v iol ati ons all eg ed by the Sta te except f or com mitt ing assault. T he trial c o u rt f o u n d Ca ntu had comm itted all

v iol ati ons, i ncl udi ng as saul t, and or der ed th e pr ior puni shment a ss ess ed by the tr ial
cour t—t w o y ear s' confine ment in the SJD -TD CJ —to be g iv en full force and eff ect

. Can tu appeal s fr om that se ntenc e.3 II. D I S CUS S I ON B y h e r s o l e i s s u e , C a n t u co n t e n d s t h a t h e r d u e p ro c e s s ri gh t s we re vio la t e d b y a sent ence that w as more har sh than neces sar y to acc ompli sh the s entenc ing obj ect iv es of the Tex as Penal C ode. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1.0 2. How ever, Cantu f ails to explain
ex act ly how h e r due pr oces s r ig hts w er e i mpli cat ed by the tr ial co urt' s a ss ess ment of puni shment

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38 .1(i) (prov iding that an app ellant 's brief must "con tain
a c lea r and c onci se ar g ument for the cont enti ons made")

. Mo re ov er , C antu pr ov ide s n o aut hority, and w e f ind no ne, that supp orts h er app aren t argume nts th at (1) Te x as's sent enci ng obj ect iv es ar e l ink ed to the v ag ue feder al due pr oces s v iol ati on she cl aims , or (2 ) a s entenc e w it hin the sta tutor y r ang e of puni shment ca n v iol ate or ev en impli cat e the sent enci ng obj ect iv es pr omulg ated by the Leg is lat ur e. "Sav e as l imi ted b y cons ti tuti onal pr ov is ion s s afeguar din g i ndi v idu al ri g hts , a Stat e maych oose means to pr otec t i tse lf and it s peopl e agai nst cri minal vi ola ti on of its la w s. The
com para tiv e grav ity

of criminal of

f ense s and w het her the ir con sequen ces are m ore or less in ju rio u s a re matte rs for i ts deter minat ion ." Penns yl vani a v . As he , 302 U .S. 51, 5 5- 56 (1 937) ; see Cr

awley v. Sta te , 513 S.W .2d 62, 66 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1974) ( hol din g that "[i ]t is w ithin th e po w er of

the St ate to de f ine as crimina l condu ct w hat ever acts it sees f it, so lon g as suc h act s bear some re asona ble re lat ion to the n eeds of soci ety and the s afety and g ener al w elfar e of the publ ic .")

. Based on the r ecor d and ar g ument be fore us , w e c annot
conc lud e tha t the tr ial cour t' s deci si on, upon re v ocat ion of Can tu' s c ommunit y su per v is ion , to g iv e full forc e and eff ect to the t w o- y ear se ntenc e or ig ina ll y

imposed in the j udg ment ofT o t he e xt ent C ant u cha l l enges her s en t en c e i n l i ght of t he f act s est abl i shed at her r ev ocat i on 1 hear i ng, we const r ue t hat ar gum ent as a chal l enge t o t he suf f i ci ency of t he e v i dence suppor t i ng h er sent ence. B e c a u s e C a n tu fa i l e d to b rie f a n y c h a l l e n g e to th e e v i d e n c e , s h e h a s w a i v e d th a t i s s u e o n a p p e a l

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 3 8 .1

. 4 c o n v i c t i o n i s c o n t r a r

y t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g o bj e c t i v e s o f t h e Te x a s P e n a l C o d e
. See A she , 302 U .S. at 55 -5 6; see als o T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 1.02. Cantu 's so le is sue is ov er ru led

. 1 III
. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 22nd da y

of Apr il , 201 0.