## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TE XAS

N O

. P D

- 1 6 3 3

- 1 0

J A M E S O D E L L M A Y E S

, J R

. , A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E F I R S T C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

H A R R I S C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n w h i c h K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , a n d

M E Y E R S

, P R IC E

, W O M A C K

, J O H N S O N

, K E A S L E R a n d H E R V E Y

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. A L C A L A

,

J

. , d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e

.

O P I N I O N

A j u r y f o u n d a p p e l l a n t g u i l t y o f t h e s e c o n d d e g r e e f e l o n y o f s e x u a l a s s a u l t

. A t t h e

p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y c o n c e r n i n g t h e p u n i s h m e n t

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

. T h e j u r y

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

s u p e r v i s i o n

. T h e j u d g e t o l d t h e j u r y t h a t i t s v e r d i c t w a s i l l e g a l b e c a u s e t h e m i n i m u m p e r i o dMay es Pag e 2

o f c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n f o r s e x u a l a s s a u l t i s f

i v e y e a r s

. S h e t o l d t h e m t o d e l i b e r a t e a g a i n

,

1

a n d t h e j u r y t h e n a s s e s s e d a s e n t e n c e o f f i v e y e a r s a n d o n c e m o r e r e c o m m e n d e d c o m m u n i t y

s u p e r v i s i o n

. T h e i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s w h e t h e r t h e i n i t i a l v e r d i c t w a s i n f a c t i l l e g a l

. T h e c o u r t

o f a p p e a l s h e l d t h a t i t w a s

, b u t w e c o n c l u d e t h a t a j u r y s e n t e n c e o f t w o y e a r s c o n f i n e m e n t 2

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

.

I

.

A p p e l l a n t w a s a t e a c h e r a t C h i l d r e n ’ s F i r s t A c a d e m y i n H o u s t o n

. S

. W

. , a s i x t e e n

y e a r

- o l d g i r l

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

. S h e t o l d a c o n s u l t a n t h i r e d b y t h e N o r t h F o r e s t

I n d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l D i s t r i c t t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a d s e x u a l l y a s s a u l t e d h e r w h e n h e w a s h e r

s e v e n t h

- g r a d e t e a c h e r

. T h e c o n s u l t a n t r e p o r t e d t h e m a t t e r t o t h e p o l i c e

. T h e p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s

t h e o r y a t t r i a l w a s t h a t a p p e l l a n t b e g a n f o n d l i n g S

. W

. a f

t e r c l a s s w h e n s h e w a s t w e l v e a n d

e n d e d u p h a v i n g s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h h e r a t h e r h o m e w h e n s h e w a s f o u r t e e n

.

A f t e r a l l t w e l v e j u r o r s r e t u r n e d a g u i l t y v e r d i c t

, e l e v e n o f t h e m d e l i b e r a t e d o n t h e

p u n i s h m e n t

. T h e p u n i s h m e n t j u r y c h a r g e g a v e t h e m f i v e p o s s i b l e c h o i c e s

, i n c l u d i n g 3

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

. R e g a r d i n g c o n f i n e m e n t

, t h e

c h a r g e s t a t e d

,

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 42.12, §§ 3(f ), 13B (b)( 2). 1

Maye s v. State , No. 01-09-00118- CR, 2010 W L 2723161, at *3 (Te x . App.–Houston 2

[1st Dist.] J uly

8, 2010) (not desig nated f or publication) ( “The jury initially returne d a ver dict

sentenc ing a

ppellant to two y ear s and re commending community supervision. This verdict wa s

illega l under a

rticle 42.12.” ).

One juror

ref used to deliberate and wa s excused by ag ree ment of both parties. 3May es Pag e 3

[ T ] h e p u n i s h m e n t f

o r s e x u a l a s s a u l t s h a l l b e b y c o n f i n e m e n t i n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l

d i v i s i o n o f t h e T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e f o r n o t l e s s t h a n t w o

y e a r s n o r m o r e t h a n t w e n t y y e a r s

.

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

, t h e c h a r g e s t a t e d

,

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

, t h e m i n i m u m p e r i o d

o f s u p e r v i s i o n i s f

i v e y e a r s a n d t h e m a x i m u m p e r i o d o f s u p e r v i s i o n i s t e n

y e a r s

.

T h e j u r y w a s t h e n i n s t r u c t e d

,

I f y o u d e s i r e t h e d e f

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

, l e t y o u r

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

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

f e l o n y i n t h i s S t a t e o r i n a n y o t h e r S t a t e a n d f u r t h e r s h o w t h a t y o u r e c o m m e n d

c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n

.

D u r i n g d e l i b e r a t i o n s

, t h e j u r y s e n t t h e j u d g e s e v e r a l n o t e s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t w i s h e d t o

i m p o s e t h e m i n i m u m p u n i s h m e n t

. T h e j u r y a s k e d

, “ C a n w e r e c o m m e n d l e s s t h a n 5 y e a r s

p r o b a t i o n ? ” a n d n o t e d

, “ t h e J u r y w o u l d [ p r e f e r ] t h e l e a s t r e s t r i c t i o n s a n d g r a n t t h e m o s t r i g h t s

a n d f r e e d o m s t o D e f

e n d a n t

. ” T h e j u r y l a t e r a s k e d

, “ C a n w e l e t t h e r e c o r d s h o w t h a t t h i s j u r y

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

t h a t M r

. M a y e s b e g i v e n t h e l e a s t p o s s i b l e p u n i s h m e n t a n d b e g r a n t e d m a x i m u m r i g h t s a n d

f r e e d o m

. ” F i n a l l y

, t h e j u r y s o u g h t c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p u n i s h m e n t f o r m : “ W e w a n t t o m a k e 4

This is the verdict for

m the jury

used: 4

“We, the Jury , having found the de fenda nt, J ames Ode ll

May es, g uilty

of sexual assault, assess his punishment at

confine ment in the instit utional divisi on of the Te x as De partment

of Criminal J ustice for

____________ y ear s and fur ther find that

the def endant ha s never

befor e bee n convicted of a fe lony in this

state or a ny other state a

nd rec ommend community supervision of

the sentenc e.”May es Pag e 4

s u r e t h a t t h e 3 r d c h o i c e i s t h e o n e f o r p r o b a t i o n o n l y a n d t h a t h e w i l l n o t b e [ i ] n c a r c e r a t e d ?

I s t h e n u m b e r t h a t w e f

i l l o u t i n c h o i c e # 3 t h e # o f y e a r s f o r p r o b a t i o n ? P l e a s e c l a r i f y ! ”

T h e j u d g e r e f

e r r e d t h e j u r y t o t h e c h a r g e

, a n d t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d t h e v e r d i c t f o r m w i t h

“ t w o ” w r i t t e n i n t h e b l a n k f o r t h e n u m b e r o f y e a r s o f c o n f i n e m e n t

. T h e j u d g e d e c l a r e d t h e

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

. T h e j u r y 5

l a t e r r e t u r n e d t h e v e r d i c t f o r m w i t h “ t w o ” c r o s s e d o u t a n d “ f i v e ” w r i t t e n i n i t s p l a c e

. A f t e r

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

, t h e j u d g e a n n o u n c e d

, “ J a m e s M a y e s

, t h e j u r y

h a v i n g f o u n d y o u g u i l t y a n d t h e C o u r t w i l l t h e n a s s e s s y o u r p u n i s h m e n t b a s e d o n t h e j u r y ’ s

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f 5 y e a r s p r o b a t i o n

. ” T h e s i g n e d j u d g m e n t s t a t e d t h e s e n t e n c e t o b e “ 5

y e a r s I n s t i t u t i o n a l D i v i s i o n

, T D C J ” “ s u s p e n d e d ” “ f o r t h e a d j u d g e d p e r i o d

. ” A p p e l l a n t d i d

n o t o b j e c t a t t h i s t i m e

, b u t h e d i d f i l e a m o t i o n f

o r n e w t r i a l

, a r g u i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e h a d

e r r o n e o u s l y r e

j e c t e d t h e j u r y ’ s o r i g i n a l p u n i s h m e n t v e r d i c t

. T h i s m o t i o n f o r n e w t r i a l w a s

The re cord r efle cts the following : 5

J udg e: Madam F orema n, I understand the jury

has a ve rdict?

For eper son: Yes.

J udg e: Would y ou pass it to the bailiff, please ? Please stand, Mr. Ma y es.

( At the benc h, on the rec ord.)

J udg e: I t’s not rig ht. I can’ t take this verdict be cause it say s 2 y ear s, not 5 y ear s.

Prosecutor: That’s rig ht. I t’s an illeg al ver dict.

J udg e: That’s a

n illega l verdict. I

have to se nd them back. I t’s not the rig ht punishment

rang e.

Def ense: Right.

( End of discussion at the bench.)

J udg e: Madam F orema n, I cannot a cce pt this verdict beca use it does not comport with the

para meters se t out by

the L eg islature as indica ted in the cha rg e. So, I have to se nd

y ou back to c ontinue y our deliber ations.May es Pag e 5

o v e r r u l e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w

. 6

O n a p p e a l

, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e d

, i n t e r a l i a

, t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t h i m

a n e w t r i a l b a s e d o n t h e i m p r o p e r r e j e c t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e o f t w o y e a r s c o n f i n e m e n t

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

. A f t e r s e t t i n g o u t t h e p r o c e d u r a l

r e q u i r e m e n t s f

o r e r r o r p r e s e r v a t i o n b u t n o t r u l i n g o n t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n q u e s t i o n

, t h e c o u r t o f

a p p e a l s t u r n e d t o t h e m e r i t s a n d h e l d t h a t t h e j u r y c h a r g e w a s c o r r e c t a n d t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e

p r o p e r l y d e c l a r e d t h e o r i g i n a l v e r d i c t i l l e g a l

. W e g r a n t e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r 7

d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w

. 8

I I

.

A r t i c l e 4 2

. 1 2

, t h e c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n s t a t u t e

, “ i s l o n g

, c o m p l e x

, a n d o f t e n 9

The State a

rg ues that the motion for ne w trial wa s never timely prese nted to the trial 6

court. We do not rea ch that issue her e.

Maye s v. State , No. 01-09-00118- CR, 2010 W L 2723161, at *3 (Te x . App.—Houston 7

[1st Dist.] J uly

8, 2010) (not desig nated f or publication).

We gr anted both of a

ppellant’s g rounds for r eview: 8

1. The Court of Appe als err ed in conc luding that the jur y ’s initial verdict asse ssing

Petitioner’s sentenc e at two y ear s confineme nt and re commending community

supervision [was] i lleg al under T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 42.12 § 3(b) , (f) as applied to

a convic tion for an of

fense proscr ibed by T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 22.011.

2. I n upholding the tr ial court’s de cision authorizing the jury to assess the ter

m of

community

supervision based upon a n instruction misdi rec ting the jur y as to the

applicable rang e of punishment, the Court of A ppeals . . . ha s decide d an important issue

of state law

in a way that misconstrues T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 42.12, a nd conflicts

with the applicable decisions of a nother c ourt of appe als and the Court of Criminal

Appea ls on the same issue.

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 42.12. 9May es Pag e 6

a m e n d e d

, a n d i t c a n c o n f u s e e v e n t h e m o s t e x p e r i e n c e d j u d g e o r l a w y e r

. ” A n d i t d o e s

. 1 0

T h e s t a t u t e e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e s f o r j u r y

- r e c o m m e n d e d c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n : “ A j u r y

t h a t i m p o s e s c o n f

i n e m e n t a s p u n i s h m e n t f o r a n o f f e n s e m a y r e c o m m e n d t o t h e j u d g e t h a t t h e

j u d g e s u s p e n d t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c e a n d p l a c e t h e d e f e n d a n t o n c o m m u n i t y

s u p e r v i s i o n

. ” R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r s u c h a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n i n c l u d e ( 1 ) a s e n t e n c e o f 1 1

c o n f i n e m e n t f

o r t e n y e a r s o r l e s s

, a n d ( 2 ) a p r e

- t r i a l m o t i o n f i l e d b y t h e d e f

e n d a n t s t a t i n g t h a t

h e h a s n o p r i o r f

e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s

, w h i c h t h e j u r y f i n d s t o b e t r u e

. I f t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s 1 2

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

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e m u s t p l a c e t h e

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

, b u t h e h a s g r e a t d i s c r e t i o n i n c h o o s i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e

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

. 1 3

A r t i c l e 4 2

. 1 2

, s e c t i o n 3 ( b )

, s e t s f o r t h t h e g e n e r a l r u l e c o n c e r n i n g t h e m i n i m u m p e r i o d

o f c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n f o r a f e l o n y o f f e n s e : “ I n a f

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

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

o f f e n s e [

. ] ” B u t s e c t i o n 3 t h e n s e t s o u t a n u m b e r o f e x c e p t i o n s t o b o t h t h e m i n i m u m a n d

1 4

m a x i m u m t e r m s o f s u p e r v i s i o n

. S e c t i o n 3 ( f )

, f o r e x a m p l e

, s t a t e s t h a t t h e m i n i m u m p e r i o d

Arnold v. State , 115 S.W .3d 757, 760 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.). 1 0

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 42.12, § 4(a ). 1 1

Id. § 4(d)( 1), (e ). 1 2

Id. § 4(b) ( “I f the jury

rec ommends to the judge that the judg e plac e the de fenda nt on 1 3

community

supervision, the judg e shall plac e the de fenda nt on community

supervision for a

ny

period pe rmitted under Sec tion 3(b) or 3© of this ar ticle, as a ppropriate .”).

Id. § 3(b). 1 4May es Pag e 7

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

, w h i l e t h e

m a x i m u m p e r i o d i s t e n y e a r s

. 1 5

T h e s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e f

o r s e x u a l a s s a u l t u n d e r t h e p r e s e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, h o w e v e r

, i s

n o t c o n f i n e m e n t b e t w e e n f

i v e a n d t e n y e a r s

, b u t b e t w e e n t w o a n d t w e n t y y e a r s

. T h e c o u r t 1 6

o f a p p e a l s

, i n t h i s c a s e

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

a r e i n e x t r i c a b l y l i n k e d t o g e t h e r

. T h u s

, a d e f e n d a n t w h o w a s s e n t e n c e d t o t h e m i n i m u m 1 7

p e r i o d o f c o n f

i n e m e n t

– t w o y e a r s

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

m i n i m u m p e r i o d o f s u p e r v i s i o n i s f i v e y e a r s

. B u t t h e t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t i s n o t l i n k e d t o

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

. T h e s e a r e t w o e n t i r e l y d i s t i n c t c o n c e p t s

.

N u m e r o u s T e x a s c a s e s s h o w t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e a n d t h e c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n p e r i o d

a r e e n t i r e l y d i f

f e r e n t m a t t e r s

. I n S

p e t h v

. S t a t e

, a p p e l l a n t o b j e c t e d t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f 1 8

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

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s h e l d t h a t t h e 1 9

d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t b a r r e d f r o m d o i n g s o b e c a u s e h e “ c o u l d r a i s e ‘ a d e f e c t i n h i s s e n t e n c e

e v e n t h o u g h h e h a d n o t o b j e c t e d t o i t a t t r i a l

. ’ ” W e r e v e r s e d

, n o t i n g t h a t “ c o m m u n i t y 2 0

Id. § 3(f)

. 1 5

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E §§ 22.011(f) , 12.33(a)

. 1 6

Maye s , 2010 WL 2723161, at *3. 1 7

6 S.W .3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 1 8

Id. at 531. 1 9

Id. (quoting Speth v. State , 965 S.W .2d 13, 15 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1998), 2 0

rev’ d , 6 S.W .3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)).May es Pag e 8

s u p e r v i s i o n i s n o t a s e n t e n c e o r e v e n a p a r t o f a s e n t e n c e

. ” A g a i n

, i n E x p a r t e W

i l l i a m s

, 2 1

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

. W i l l i a m s 2 2

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

, a r g u i n g t h a t a n u n l a w f u l g r a n t o f c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n ( l a t e r 2 3

r e v o k e d ) r e n d e r e d h i s s e n t e n c e i l l e g a l

. T h i s C o u r t

, r e l y i n g o n S p e t h

, h e l d t h a t “ t h e t r i a l 2 4

c o u r t ’ s u n a u t h o r i z e d [ c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n ] o r d e r d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e a n i l l e g a l s e n t e n c e

. ” 2 5

T h e s e n t e n c e i s t h e t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t a s s e s s e d

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

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

l o c a l c o m m u n i t y

. 2 6

Speth, 6 S.W .3d at 532, 535. 2 1

65 S.W .3d 656, 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). 2 2

The judg e suspende d Wil liams’s sentence for a g g rava ted assault and pla ced him on 2 3

community

supervision, but Wi lliams was ineligible f or such supe rvision beca

use of a deadly

wea pon finding

. Id. at 656-57; see also T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 42.12, § 3g (a) (2) ( stating

that judge -orde red c ommunity supervision does not apply “whe n it is shown that a deadly

wea pon . . . was used or

exhibi ted during the commission of a fe lony offe nse or dur ing

immediate flig ht theref

rom”).

W illiams , 65 S.W .3d at 657. 2 4

Id. 2 5

The distinction betwee n a “se ntence ” and “ community supervision” a lso play ed a vital 2 6

role in Ive y v. State , 277 S.W .3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“[A] trial court may place an

elig ible defe ndant on community supervision eve n if the def endant ha s elec ted to have his

punishment assessed by

the jury and the jury

does not rec ommend it.”). A jury convicted I vey

of

misdemeanor D WI and sente nced him to thirty -five da y s in jail plus a fine of $2,000. I t did not

rec ommend community

supervision. Id. at 44. Nonethe less, the trial judg e plac ed him on

community

supervision for two y ear s, probated $1,500 of the fine, a

nd imposed, inter alia , a

thirty -day jail term. Id. at 45. I vey

arg ued that the judg e could not plac e him on community

supervision without a jury rec ommendation beca

use he invoke d his statutory rig ht to have the

jury assess his punishment. Id. at 46-47. We af firmed the tr ial court’s de cision beca use, ag ain

rely ing on Speth , “whe n a trial judg e suspends imposition of a jury -asse ssed punishment, he doesMay es Pag e 9

I n A r n o l d v

. S t a t e

, t h e T h i r d C o u r t o f A p p e a l s d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h e c o n c e p t s o f 2 7

“ c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n ” a n d “ s e n t e n c e ” i n a c a s e s i m i l a r t o t h i s o n e

. A j u r y c o n v i c t e d

A r n o l d o f s e x u a l a s s a u l t a n d a s s e s s e d h i s s e n t e n c e a t s i x y e a r s c o n f i n e m e n t

. T h e j u r y 2 8 2 9

c h a r g e s t a t e d

, “ T h e m a x i m u m s e n t e n c e f o r [ c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n ] i s t e n y e a r s

. T h e

m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e f

o r [ c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n ] i s f i v e y e a r s

. ” T h e t r i a l j u d g e l a t e r

3 0

e x p l a i n e d t o t h e j u r y

, “ I f t h i s [ c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n ] i s y o u r v e r d i c t

, i t w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e

j u d g e a s s e s s i n g t h e p u n i s h m e n t o f 5 t o 1 0 y e a r s p r o b a t i o n

, 5

, 6

, 7

, 8

, 9

, 1 0

, o n e o f t h e m

. ” 3 1

T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s i n t e r p r e t e d t h a t s t a t e m e n t a s m e a n i n g t h a t i f t h e j u r y r e c o m m e n d e d

c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n

, t h e j u d g e w o u l d s e n t e n c e A r n o l d t o a p r o b a t e d p r i s o n t e r m b e t w e e n

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

. T h e 3 2

c o u r t o f a p p e a l s h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e “ e r r e d b y t e l l i n g t h e j u r y t h a t t h e ‘ m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e

not encr oach upon the defe ndant’s statutory option to have the jury

assess his sentenc e .” Id. at

47. Fur thermore , the judg e’s discr etion to suspend a sente nce a nd place a def

endant on

community

supervision under T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 42.12, § 3(a ) is a per missibl e

leg islative qualification to the statutory rig ht to have the jury

assess the punishment. Id. And

even thoug h the jury

assessed a

thirty -five- day

jail sentence , the trial judg e had the discretion to

place the def

endant on c ommunity

supervision for two y ear s, which is obviously a much long er

term than the ja il sentence assessed. Id . at 52.

115 S.W .3d 757 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.). 2 7

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 22.011. 2 8

Arnold , 115 S.W .3d at 758. 2 9

Id. at 759. 3 0

Id. 3 1

Id. at 759 & n.2. 3 2May es Pag e 10

f o r [ c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n ] i s f i v e y e a r s

. ’ W h a t a r t i c l e 4 2

. 1 2 p r o v i d e s i s t h a t t h e m i n i m u m

p e r i o d o f c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n f o r c h i l d s e x o f

f e n d e r s i s f

i v e y e a r s

. ” I n a f

o o t n o t e t o t h a t 3 3

h o l d i n g

, t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s e x p l a i n e d

, “ T h e p e r i o d o f s u p e r v i s i o n i s n o t a s e n t e n c e

. T h e

s e n t e n c e i s t h e t e r m o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n t h a t i s s u s p e n d e d o n t h e j u r y ’ s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n

. ” 3 4

T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n i n A r n o l d i s s u p p o r t e d b y t h e i n n u m e r a b l e T e x a s c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e

s e n t e n c e a s s e s s e d d i f

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

. T e x a s c a s e s a l s o 3 5

i n c l u d e e x a m p l e s i n w h i c h t h e j u r y

- a s s e s s e d s e n t e n c e ( o n e t h a t i n c l u d e d a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n

o f c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n ) w a s l e s s t h a n t h e m i n i m u m s u p e r v i s i o n p e r i o d

. T h o s e c a s e s d i d 3 6

n o t d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e s e n t e n c e m u s t b e a t l e a s t e q u a l t o t h e m i n i m u m

c o m m u n i t y

- s u p e r v i s i o n p e r i o d

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

s u p e r v i s i o n p e r i o d a r e n o t t h e s a m e

. I n d e e d

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

Id. at 760. 3 3

Id. at 760 n.4. 3 4

E.g.

, State v. Posey , 330 S.W .3d 311 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (offe nse, cr iminally 3 5

neg lige nt homicide; sentence , two y ear s; supervision period, five y ear s); Arnold v. State , 68

S.W .3d 93 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pe t. ref’ d) (of fense , tampering

with a witness; sentenc e,

two; supervision, five); Mitchell v. State , 187 S.W .3d 113 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, pet. re f’d)

(off ense, D WI ; sentence , one; supervision, two); State v. Lucero , 979 S.W .2d 400 (Tex.

App.—Amar illo 1998, no pet.) (offe nse, DWI ; sentence , one; supervision, two).

See, e .g.

, Theis v. State , No. 03-04-00614- CR, 2005 W L 3076935 (Tex. App.—Austin 3 6

Nov. 17, 2005, no pet.) ( not desig nated f or publication) ( offe nse, possession of child

pornog raphy ; sentence , two y ear s; supervision period, ten y ear s); Butler v. State , No. 06-03-

00102-CR, 2003 W L 22659075 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 12, 2003, no pet.) ( not desig nated

for publica tion) (offe nse, sexual assault; sentence , two; supervision, ten). See also T E X

. C O D E

C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 42.12, §§ 3(f ), 13B (b)( 1)–(2) (stating that the minimum period of community

supervision for a

defe ndant convicte d of possession of child pornog raphy , T E X

. P E N A L C O D E §

43.26, or sexual assault of a c hild, T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 22.011, is five y ear s).May es Pag e 11

b e t h e s a m e

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

p e r i o d

– t w o y e a r s

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

m a x i m u m s e n t e n c e i s c o n f i n e m e n t f

o r o n e y e a r o r l e s s

. 3 7

T h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n A r t i c l e 4 2

. 1 2 t h a t s t a t e s

, o r e v e n s u g g e s t s

, t h a t t h e j u r y m u s t a s s e s s

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

, t h e m a x i m u m p e r i o d

,

o r a n y p a r t i c u l a r p e r i o d i n b e t w e e n

. T h e j u r y d o e s n o t d e t e r m i n e t h e p e r i o d o f c o m m u n i t y

s u p e r v i s i o n

. I t a s s e s s e s t h e s e n t e n c e a n d r e c o m m e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e p l a c e t h e d e f e n d a n t

o n c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n

. T h e j u d g e m u s t f o l l o w t h a t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n

, b u t h e h a s t h e

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

, a s l o n g a s i t i s w i t h i n t h e

m i n i m u m a n d m a x i m u m s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d s

.

A d d i t i o n a l l y

, a r u l e t h a t a j u r y c a n n o t a s s e s s t h e m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e i n a c a s e i f i t a l s o

w a n t s t h e d e f

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

r e s u l t

. F o r t h e f

o l l o w i n g s t a t e j a i l f

e l o n i e s

, t h e m a x i m u m s e n t e n c e w o u l d b e m a n d a t o r y i f 3 8

t h e j u r y w e r e t o r e c o m m e n d c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n : p o s s e s s i o n o f l e s s t h a n o n e g r a m o f a

See T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 42.12, § 3(c ) (“ The maximum period of c ommunity 3 7

supervision in a misdemeanor case is two y ear s.”); T E X

. P E N A L C O D E §§ 12.21–23 (stating that

the maxim um jail sentence for a Class A misdemeanor is one y ear ; Class B, 180 day s; Class C

, no confine ment).

See B oykin v . State , 818 S.W .2d 782, 785-86 (Te x . Crim. App. 1991) (“I f the plain 3 8

lang uag e of a

statute would lead to a

bsurd re sults, or if the lang uag e is not plain but rather

ambig uous, then and only then, out of absolute ne cessity , is it constit utionally permissible for a

court to consider

. . . extratex tual fac tors[.] ”).May es Pag e 12

P e n a l t y G r o u p 1 c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e

, p o s s e s s i o n o f f e w e r t h a n t w e n t y a b u s e u n i t s o f 3 9

L S D

, p o s s e s s i o n o f l e s s t h a n o n e g r a m o f a P e n a l t y G r o u p 2 c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e

, 4 0 4 1

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

, u n a u t h o r i z e d 4 2

p o s s e s s i o n o f a p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r a S c h e d u l e I I o r I I I c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e

, a n d u n a u t h o r i z e d 4 3

p o s s e s s i o n o f a p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r m

. B e c a u s e a m i n i m u m o f t w o y e a r s o f c o m m u n i t y 4 4

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

, t h e r e w o u l d b e n o s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e

— i t w o u l d

a l w a y s b e t w o y e a r s

, t h e m a x i m u m f o r a s t a t e j a i l f

e l o n y

. I f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e h a d i n t e n d e d

4 5

t h a t r e s u l t

, i t s u r e l y w o u l d h a v e s a i d s o r a t h e r t h a n r e f e r r i n g t o t h e s t a t e

-

j a i l

- f e l o n y p e n a l t y

p r o v i s i o n

, w h i c h p r o v i d e s f o r a s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e o f 1 8 0 d a y s t o t w o y e a r s

. 4 6

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

T E X

. H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C O D E § 481.115(a) , (b); T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art 42.12, § 3 9

15(a) (1) ( “On c onviction of a state ja il felony under [enumer ated se ctions] t hat is punished under

Section 12.35(a) , Penal Code, the judg e shall suspend the imposition of the sentence and plac e

the def endant on c ommunity

supervision[.] ”) ( emphasis adde d), §15(b) (“The minimum period

of community

supervision a judg e may

impose under this section is two y ear s.”); T E X

. P E N A L

C O D E § 12.35(a) (“[A]n indi vidual adjudg ed guilty of a state jail felony

shall be punished by

confine ment in a state jail for any term of not more than two y ear s or less than 180 day s.”)

T E X

. H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C O D E §§ 481.1151(a) and (b) (1), 481.1021. 4 0

Id. § 481.116(a) , (b). 4 1

Id. § 481.121(a) , (b)( 3). 4 2

Id. § 481.129(c) (2), ( g )(1) (B ). 4 3

Id. § 481.129(c) (2)( A)–(E ), (g )(1) (A). 4 4

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 12.35(a)

. 4 5

Id. 4 6May es Pag e 13

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

, w h i c h i s t o p r o v i d e

t h o s e c r i m i n a l o f

f e n d e r s w h o d o n o t p o s e a d a n g e r t o t h e c o m m u n i t y w i t h a c h a n c e t o “ ‘ m e n d

t h e i r w a y s

. ’ ” I n d e e d

, t h e h i g h e r m i n i m u m s u p e r v i s i o n p e r i o d f o r s e x u a l o f

f e n s e s r e f l e c t s 4 7

a l e g i s l a t i v e j u d g m e n t t h a t m o r e s u p e r v i s i o n t i m e i s r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r

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

d a n g e r t o s o c i e t y

, n o t t h a t t h e m i n i m u m c o n f i n e m e n t s e n t e n c e s h o u l d b e h i g h e r f o r t h e m

.

T h e s e n t e n c e r e f

e r s t o h o w l o n g t h e d e f

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

c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n

, n o t h o w l o n g h e r e m a i n s u n d e r s u p e r v i s i o n

. W e h a v e d e s c r i b e d

c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n a s “ a n e x t e n s i o n o f c l e m e n c y ” a n d c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e 4 8

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

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

, b u t t h a t h e m a y b e a s s e s s e d

a s e n t e n c e o f o n l y t w o y e a r s i f h e g o e s d i r e c t l y t o p r i s o n

.

I I I

.

T h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e i s n o t d i f f i c u l t

. T h e j u r y i n i t i a l l y

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

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

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

p e r i o d i s f

i v e y e a r s

, t h e j u r y p r o p e r l y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t w i t h i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e o f t w o

4 9

Cuellar v. State , 70 S.W .3d 815, 817 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). 4 7

Speth v. State , 6 S.W .3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 4 8

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 42.12, §§ 3(f ), 13B (b)( 2). 4 9May es Pag e 14

t o t w e n t y y e a r s

. B e c a u s e s u p e r v i s i o n i s n o t a p a r t o f t h e s e n t e n c e

, a p p e l l a n t c o u l d r e c e i v e 5 0

a s e n t e n c e o f t w o y e a r s

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

t h e m i n i m u m t e r m o f f i v e y e a r s ( o r f

o r a n y g r e a t e r p e r i o d u p t o t e n y e a r s )

. T h e j u r y w a s

p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t e d o n t h e p e r t i n e n t l a w

, a n d i t f o l l o w e d t h a t l a w

. T h e i n i t i a l j u r y v e r d i c t o f

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

, a n d t h e

t r i a l j u d g e s h o u l d h a v e a c c e p t e d i t

.

W e t h e r e f

o r e r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a n d r e m a n d t h e c a s e t o t h a t

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

, w h i c h i s n o t b e f o r e u s

.

D e l i v e r e d : S e p t e m b e r 1 4

, 2 0 1 1

P u b l i s h

See T E X

. P E N A L C O D E §§ 22.011(f) , 12.33(a)

.

5 0