### NUM BER 13-09- 136- 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
FE LIX A RGU EL LE Z, JR ., A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 77t h Dist rict C ou rt of Vict oria Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la Appel lan t, Fel ix

Arg uel lez , J r. , w as ind ic ted for poss ess ion of c ocai ne i n an amount of one g ra m or more but l ess than four g ra ms, a thi rd -d eg re e felony

. See T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481.115 (a ), ( c) ( Ver non 200 3)

. Pursuantto a pl ea- barg ain ag re ement, Arguellez plea ded g uilty to th e of f ense , and the trial court sen ten ced h im to e ight y ears’See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 2.01 (a)(1), (b)( 2) (V ern on S up p. 20 08 ). 1 In th e “ T r ia l C o u r t’s C e r tif ic a tio n o fD e f e n d a n t’s R ig h t o f A p p e a l,” th e tr ia l c o u r t c e r tif ie d th a t “ th is 2 c ri m i na l ca s e: i s no t a p l ea -ba rga i n c as e, an d t he de fen da nt ha s t he ri gh t of ap pe al

. ” 2 impr i s o n me n t

. T h e t r i a l c o u rts u s p e n d e d t h e s e n t e n c e a n d p l a c e d h i m o n c o mm u n it y super v is ion for fiv e y ears a nd fined him $2,500. The Stat e subseq uentl y f il ed a motio n to re v oke communi ty su per v is ion , al leg ing that Arg uelle z viola ted t he te rms and condi ti ons of communit y su per v is ion by co mmitt ing the of f ense of assau lt causing bod ily

injury -fam ily

v iolence , failing to pay required court cost s,

1 fa il in g t o p a y t h e $ 2 , 5 0 0 f in e , a n d fa il in g t o co m p le t e t h e re qu ir e d h o u rs o f co m m u n it yser v ic e r est it uti on. Arg uel lezpl e a d e d “ tr ue” to all of the a ll eg ati ons, and after hear ing tes ti mony

and cl osi ng arg uments , t h e t rial c our t found t he al leg ati ons to be “ tr ue” and sent enced Arg uel lez to eig ht y ears’ impr is onment, plu s a $2,500 fine. By on e iss ue, 2 Arguellez a rg u e s t h a t article 42. 07 o f the T exas Code of Cri min al Proced ure is
uncon sti tuti onal bec ause it abr idg es a defendant’ s D ue Proces s r ig ht un der the Uni ted Stat es Con sti tuti on to personal ly addr ess the tr ial co urt, apar t from tes ti fyi ng , i n mi ti g ati on of h i s s en te nc e. W e affi r m. I

. D I S CUS S I ON Article 42. 07 o f

the T exas Code of

Cri min al Proced ure provides: Before pr onounc ing se ntenc e, the def endant shal l be asked w hether he h as an y thing to say w hy the se nte nce shou ld not b e pron oun ced a gainst him . Th e on ly

reason s w hich can be show n, on accou nt of w hich sen ten ce canno t be pr onounc ed, a re : 1

. T h a tt h e d e f e n d a n th a s re c e ive d a p a rd o n f ro m t h e p ro p e r a u t h o ri t y, on th e pr esent ati on of w hic h, l eg all y auth enti cat ed, h e s hal l be di sc harg ed. 2. That the d efendant i s i ncompet ent t o s tand tr ial ; and if ev ide nce be shown to supp ort a f inding of in com pet ency to stand trial, no sent ence shall be pronounc ed, a nd th e c our t s hal l pr oceed under

C hapter 46B; and3 3. W hen a person w ho has been conv ic ted e sc apes after conv ic ti on and befor e s entenc e and an i n d iv idu al suppo sed to be the same h as been ar re ste d he maybefore sent ence is pronounc ed, d eny thathe is the person convicted, a nd an issue be accord ingly tried before a j ury , or bef ore the court if a ju ry i s wa ive d , a s t o h is id e n t it y. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 42.07 (V er non 200 6)

. Rule 33 .1 of

the T exas Rules of App ellate Proced ure g overns preservation of error, and s tates , i n par

t: (a) In Ge nera l. As a prer eq uis it e to pr esent ing a c omplai nt for appel lat e re v iew , t he r ecord mustsh ow that : (1 ) the c omplai nt w as made to the t ri al cour t by a ti m e ly r eq uest , obj ect ion , or

moti on th at: (A ) sta ted t he grounds f or the ru li ng that the complai nin g par ty so ug ht from the tr ial co urt w it h s uff ic ien t s peci fici ty to ma ke the t ri al cour

t aw ar e of the c omplai nt, unl ess the spec ificg ro unds w er e apparent fr om the cont ex t; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33 .1(a)(1)(A). “Th is Ru le enco mp asses th e con cept of ‘party respo nsibility.’” Pena v Sta te , 285 S. W .3 d 45 9 , 4 6 3 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g Rey na v . St ate , 168 S.W .3d 1 73, 1 76 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2005))

. In other w or ds, the compl ain ing party bears t he r espon si bil it y of cl ear ly co nv ey ing to the tr ial cour t the par ti cul ar compl ain t, inc lud ing the p re ci se and proper appl ic ati on of the law , as w ell as the under ly ing r ati onal e. Id . at 463-64. To av oid forfeit ing
a com plaint on ap pea l, the party “‘mu st let the trial j udge kno w w hat he w ant s, w hy he th inks he i s e nt i tl ed t o i t, a nd t o do s o c l ea r l y e no ug h for

t he j ud g e to u nd er stan d hi m a t a ti me
w he n th e j ud g e i s i n th e prop er po s i ti on to do s om et hi ng ab ou t it.’” Id . at464 (q uoti ng Lanks ton v. Sta te , 827 S.W .2d 907 , 909 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92)). “W het her a pa rty ’s par ti cul ar co mp la in t is pr eser

v ed depe nds on w hether the compl ain t on appeal co mport s
w ith the comp laint m ade at trial. In ma king this determ inatio n, w e con sider the conte x t in
w hich th e com plaint w as ma de a nd th e pa rties’ shared und ers t a n ding at tha t time .” Id

.4

(foot not e om itted .). At t he r ev ocat ion hear in g, Arg uel lezhad the r ig ht, throug h c ounse l, to pr esent
ev ide nce and arg ument t o s u p p o rt a mit ig ati on r eq uest

. In fact , Arg uel leztes ti fied atthe
re v ocat ion hear ing , as ki ng the tr ial courtto cont inu e hi m on c ommunit y su per v is ion

. W hen the t ri al cour

t ask ed defense couns el, “I s t her e any l eg al re ason w hy

se ntenc e s houl d not be i mposed and as ses sed?” , defense co unsel r epl ied , “ No, y our H onor .” After

a br ief dis tr actio n , th e t rial co urt ag ain as ked, “ Any l eg al re ason w hy

se ntenc e s houl d notbe impos ed?”

. Defense co unsel r epl ied , “ No leg al re ason. ” The tr ial co urt t hen as ses sed puni shment

. Defense co unsel di d notst ate t hat a ny of a rt icl e 42. 07's three r eason s for
w it hhol din g pronounc ement of s entenc e appl ied t o h im, and he v oic ed no obj ect ion or compl ain t w it h r espec t to the ass ess ment of puni shmentor thatar ti cl e 42. 07 v iol ated any ri g ht un der eit her the Uni ted Stat es or Tex as Con sti tuti ons. F urther more, there ar e no post
jud g me n t motions thati ncl ude arg ument or auth or it y

ch all eng ing the cons ti tuti onal it y of article 42. 07. Nothin g in the reco rd su gg este d tha t the trial court w as aware of Arg uellez’s
ar g ument t hat a rt ic le 42.07 i s u n consti tuti onal bec ause itdeni es a defendant a r ig ht of
a ll o c u t io n , i. e
. , t h e ri gh to f a d e f e n d a n tt o m a k e a f in a l p le a t o t h e ju d ge o n h is o r h e r o wn b e h a lf pri o r to se n te n cin g. In Ei sen v. State , 40 S. W .3d 628 (Tex. App. –W aco 200 1, pe t. ref ’d), the co urt held tha t a def end ant did not have a constitu ti o nal right to allocutio n an d tha t the trial court’s failu re to f o ll ow

ar ti cl e 42. 07 w as not p re ser v ed for re v iew

w hen t he defendant did not cont end that one of t he s tatut e’s three r eason s a ppl ied to him. Id . at 636. Thus , Arg uel lez forfeited thi s c omplai nt on appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1( a) (1 )( A) ; Pena , 285 S.W .3d a t 464; see a lso Alexander v. State , 137 S.W .3d 1 27, 1 30- 31 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 2004, pet. re f’d) ( hol din g thatfail ur e to obj ectto tr ial co urt a b o ut v iol ati ons of f eder al andE x am pl es of ri gh t s t ha t a re w ai vab l e o nl y i nc l ud e t he ri gh t s t o t he as s i s t an c e o f co un s el an d t o a j ury 3 tri a l

. S a l d a n o v . S ta te , 70 S

. W

. 3d 87 3, 88 8 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 02 ).

E x am pl es ofabso l ut e sy st em i c r equi r em ent s i ncl ude j ur i sdi ct i on o ft he p er son, j ur i sdi ct i on o ft he 4 s u b je c t m a tte r, a p e n a l s ta tu te ’ s b e i n g i n c o m p l i a n c e w i th th e S e p a ra ti o n o f P o w e rs S e c ti o n o f th e s ta te c o n s ti tu ti o n , a c o n s ti tu ti o n a l re q u i re m e n t t h a t a d i s tri c t c o u rt m u s t c o n d u c t i ts p ro c e e d i n g s a t th e c o u n ty s e a t, t he co nst i t ut i onal pr ohi bi t i on ofex post f act o l aws, and cer t ai n con st i t ut i onal r est r ai nt s on t he co m m ent s of a ju d g e
. Id

. at 888
- 89. 5 sta te due proce ss w aiv ed appell ate rev iew of thos e c lai ms) ; Mi

les v. State , 688 S.W .2d 2 19, 227 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 1985, pet. r ef’d) ( hol din g that“ [a]n obj ect ion to deni al of all ocut ion is a prerequisite to ap pellat e com plaint ”). Fund amental er ro r maybe rais ed for the first ti me on ap peal

. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 103 ( d ) ( p r o v i d i n g t h a ta n a p p e l l a t e c o u rtm a y t a k e n o t i c e o f f u n d a me n t a l e r r o r s a ff ect ing subst ant ial rig hts altho ugh the errors w ere no t preserved at trial). Funda me nta l errors are
v iolation s of rig hts w hich are “w aivable only” or den ials of abso lute s y stem ic 3
re q uirements —bot h of w hic h need not b e pr eser v ed by obj ect ion

. Me ndez

v. Sta te , 138 4 S.W .3d 334, 341 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2004) ; Ma ri n v. State , 85 1 S. W .2 d 27 5, 2 80 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1993) , over

ru led on o ther gr ounds ; Cai

n v . St ate , 947 S.W .2d 262 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 199 7). Th us, Arguellez w as required to object unless this rig ht is one that is either w aivable only or an a bsolu te, systemic requireme nt. Arguellez ref ers to no auth ority hold ing that his compl ain t c onst it utes ei ther a w aiv abl e- onl y

r ig ht or an a bsol ute, sy ste micr eq uirement. W e not e tha t t he U nit ed St ates Supreme Cour t has not found tha t t he U nit ed St ates Con sti tuti on mandat es a ri g ht of al loc uti on free from cross -e x aminat ion before puni shment has been as ses sed. See Hil l v. U n ited St

ates , 368 U .S. 424, 429 ( 1962) ( findi ng no const itution al v iolation w hen trial court violated f ede ral proced ural rule ma nda ting that cou rt ask de f end ant if he had anything to saybef ore sen ten ce w as imp osed ). Likew ise, the court of c ri minal appeal s has not int er pr eted the Uni ted Stat es Con sti tuti on as re q uir ing su ch a6

rig ht. “Remo rse followi ng comm ission of a seriou s c ri m e may w ell be a circum stan ce tendi ng i n so m e measu re to miti g ate t he deg re e of a c ri minal ’s fault, but itmustbe prese nte d in a form accept able to the law of evidence. ” Lewis v. Sta te , 815 S.W .2d 5 60, 568 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991)

. The sol e i ss ue for re v iew i s o v er ru led

. II. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 8 th da y

of Oct ober , 200 9.