Al t hough Agui l ar l abel s hi s ar gum ent s as one i ssue, we be l i ev e he has ar t i cul at ed t wo i ssues f or our 1 r ev i ew
. 

### NUM BER 13-09- 0061 3-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

PED RO A GUIL A R, 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 17t 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 R od rigu ez, B en av ide s, an d Vela M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t Pe dr o Ag uil ar co mplai ns of the r ev ocat ion of his co mmunity su per v is ion , upon w hic h he w as sent enced to four y ear s' inc ar cer ati on. By tw o i ss ues, Ag uil ar

ar g ues 1B e c a u s e th i s i s a m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n a n d th e p a rti e s a re fa m i l i a r w i th th e fa c ts , w e w i l l n o t re c i te 2 th e m h e re e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry to a d v i s e th e p a rti e s o f t h e C o u rt's d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 4 7 .4

.

At t he hear i ng on i t s m ot i on t o r ev oke, t he St at e aband oned one of i t s f our or i gi nal al l eged v i ol at i ons. 3
A g u ila r a f f ir m e d to th e tr ia l c o u r t t h a t h e u n d e r s to o d a n d a c c e p te d th e p le a b a r g a in d e a l. 4 2 tha t: ( 1) the trial cou rt erred in f ailing to ask Aguilar i f there was any legal reason h is sent ence shoul d not be impos ed; a nd ( 2) ar ti cl e 42. 07 of Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Pr ocedu re is u ncons ti tuti onal bec ause it abr idg es his due pr oces s r ig ht un der the Uni ted State s Co n st it u tion to di re ctl y addr ess the cour

t i n mi ti g ati on of hi s s entenc e. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. ar t. 4 2. 07 ( Ve r no n 20 06 )

. W e affi r m.

I. B A CKGRO UND 2 In N ov ember

2007, Agui lar

w as pla ced on s ix

y ear s' deferr ed adj udi cat ion communi ty

su per v is ion for b ur g lar

y of a habi tati on. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 30.02( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 3)

. On M ar ch 2 0 , 2 0 0 9 , t he St ate fil ed i ts moti on to r ev oke, all eg ing that Ag uil ar had v iol ated four condi ti ons of his co mmunity su per v is ion

. The tr ial

co u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g o n t h e S t a t e ' s m o t i o n o n S e p t e mb e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 , a t w h i c h A g uil ar plea ded true to th ree of the f our v iolation s. T he trial cou rt then adjud icated Aguilar's guilt 3 and, follo w ing a pl ea bar g ain ag re ement be tw een t he St ate a n d A g u il ar , se ntenc ed Ag uil ar 4 to four y ear s' co nfinement in the Ins ti tuti onal Di v is ion of t he Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Jus ti ce. II. D I S CUS S I ON By one is sue, Ag uil ar

appear s t o arg ue that the tri al cour t v iol ated art ic le 42.07 of the code of

criminal proce du re wh e n i t f a iled to ask Aguilar if there was any reaso n his sent ence shoul d not be im posed

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. a rt

. 4 2

. 0 7

. By a" Al l ocut i on" i s def i ned as an " unswor n st at em ent f r om a conv i ct ed def endan t t o t he sent enci ng j udge 5 or j ur y i n whi ch t he def endan t can ask f or m er cy , expl ai n hi s or her cond uct , apo l ogi z e f or t he cr i m e, or say a n y th i n g e l s e i n a n e ff o rt to l e s s e n th e i m p e n d i n g s e n te n c e ." B L A CK ' S L AW D I C T I O N A R Y 88 (9t h e d. 20 09 ).

W e con st r ue Agui l ar ' s secon d i ssue a s a f aci al chal l enge t o t he co nst i t ut i onal i t y of ar t i cl e 42

. 07 6 be c au s e Agui l ar app ear s t o " ' consi der onl y t he t ext of t he m easur e i t sel f , and not i t s app l i cat i on t o t he par t i cul ar ci r cum st ances of [ hi s case]

. A pa r t y asser t i ng a f aci al chal l enge t o a st at ut e see k s t o v i ndi cat e no t o n ly h is o w n r ig h ts , b u t a ls o th o s e o f o th e r s w h o m a y a ls o b e a d v e r s e ly im p a c te d b y th e s ta tu te in q u e s tio n .'" S e e K a re n e v v . S ta te , 281 S. W

. 3d 4 28, 435 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 9) ( C ochr an, J. , concu r r i ng) ( quot i ng 1 6 C .J .S

. Co n s t i t u t i o n a l

L a w § 1 13 , at 14 9 (20 05 ))

. 3 secon d issue, Aguilar conten ds tha t article 42. 07 o f t h e cod e of

criminal proce dure

uncon sti tuti onal ly re str ic ts his ri g ht to all ocut ion —i n other w or ds, that his federa l d ue 5 proce ss rights w ere vi olate d w hen he w as no t af f orde d the opp ortun ity to perso nally addr ess the cour

t re g ar din g his sent ence, apar t from tes ti fyi ng or othe rwise prese nti ng
ev ide nce to t he c our

t. See i d. (p ro v idi ng that a de fendant "s hal l be as ked w hether he h as anything to say w hy the sente nce sh ould not be prono unce d against him " an d tha t the only

re asons for w hic h sentenc e cannot be pronounc ed are (1) a par don, (2 ) inc ompetenc y , or (3) m ist a ke n identi ty ). H ow ev er , w e do not r each eit her i ss ue bec ause Ag uil ar fail ed to p re s e rve t h e m f o r o u r r e vie w. Fi rs t, Ag uil ar

w as re q uir ed to obj ect to the t ri al cour t t hat h e w as deni ed hi s r ig ht t o
a ll o c u t io n u n d e r ar t ic le 4 2

. 0 7 in o rd e r to p re s e rve t h a t c o m p la in t f o r ap p e l l a t e r e vie w. Ei sen v. Stat e , 40 S. W .3d 628 , 636 -37 ( T ex. App .–W aco 2 001 , pet . ref 'd); se e al so Rey na
v. Stat e , N o. 13 -9 8- 00429- CR , 2002 W L 253780, at *1 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti F eb. 2 1, 2002, no pet.) (mem. op., not desig nated for publ ic ati on)

. Seco nd, a ny faci al chal len g e to the c onst it uti onal it y

of a s tatut e must be r ais ed i n the tri al cour t. Kar enev v. Stat e , 281 6 S.W .3d 4 28, 4 34 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2009) ; see als o H enkel v. Sta te , No. 13-0 3-00 112 -CR, 2005 W L 59269 29, a t * 6 ( Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti Apr . 14, 2005, no p et.) ( mem. op., not4

desi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( conc lud ing that the appel lan t forfei ted h is co n st it uti onal compl ain ts re g ar din g hi s r ig ht t o al loc uti on by fail ing to obj ect or

othe rw is e r ais e tha t er ro r in the t ri al cour

t)

. Hav ing fail ed to v oic e any obj ect ion to th e t ria l co urt r eg ar din g ei ther is sue, Ag uil ar

has pr eser

v ed nei ther

for o ur r ev iew

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33. 1(a). Aguilar's firs t and se cond is sues ar e the re fore ov er ru led

. 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 17th day of June, 2010.