### NUM BER 13-08- 0024 4-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 – E DI NBURG

EL IBER TO GA RZA , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 14t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Af ter a rev ocat ion hearing, the trial court r evoked Appellan t, Elib e rt o G a rz a’s, deferr ed adj udi cat ion co mmunity su per v is ion , adj udi cat ed hi s g uil t, and s entenc ed hi m to
s e r v e tw o , c o n c u r r e n t , t h i rt y - y e a r t e r m s i n p r i s o n
. G a rz a r a i s e s t w o i s s u e s o n a p p e a l

. W e affi r m.2 I. B A CKGRO UND On Au gust 24, 20 06, Garz a w as indicte d on tw o cou nts of se x ual assau lt o f

a child y oung er than the ag e of fourtee n. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.021 (V er non Su pp. 2008)

. On O cto ber

16, 2006, Gar

z a plea d e d g uil ty

to both count s. Pursuantto a pl ea ag re ement, the t ri al cour t defer re d adju d ic ati on and pla ced Gar z a on communi ty super v is ion

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P RO
. A NN . ar t. 42.12 (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. On S eptember

17, 2007, the S tate filed a mot ion to re v oke Ga rza’ s communi ty super v is ion and to adj udi cat e hi s g uil t. The St ate a ll eg ed Ga rz a v iol ated sev er al condi ti ons of his co mmunity

su per v is ion b y usi ng nar cot ic s, faili ng to re por t t o hi s s uper

v is or , and faili ng to pay

the re q uired fees. On Apr il 7 , 2 0 0 8 , the tr ial co urt hel d a h ear ing on t he Sta t e ’s m otion . Garz a an sw ered “true” to the a llegations, a nd th e trial court revoked his communi ty

su per v is ion , adj udi cat ed hi m g uil ty , and sent enced him to ser v e tw o c oncur re nt thi rt y -y ear

ter ms i n pr is on. This appeal ens ued.

II. I NSUFFI CI ENT E V I DE NCE T O A D JUD I C A TE G UI LT In his f irst issue, Garza a s s e rts that th e “trial court abu sed its discretio n w hen it adj udi cated the defendant’ s g uil t and i mposed a thi rt y y ear [s ic ] s entenc e to the [ Tex as Depa rtme nt of

Crimin al Justice-In stitutio nal Div ision] w ithou t consid ering substan ce ab use treat me nt.” Reph rased , Garza arg ues t hatthe evidence is i nsuf f icient to supp ort
rev ocat ion an d tha t the trial court failed to conside r pl a c in g h im in a substa nce a buse felony puni shmentfaci li ty

. W e r ev iew

the re v ocat ion of communi ty su per v is ion under

an ab u se of dis cr eti on sta ndar d. Her

re ra v. Sta te , 951 S.W .2d 197, 19 9 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1997, no p et.) (ci ti n g W ester v. Sta te , 542 S.W .2d 4 03, 4 05 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1976) ). W e r e view the3

ev ide nce in the l ig h t m o st fav or abl e to the t ri al cour t’ s d eci si on. Id. The S tate has the bur den t o prov e, by

a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce, the v iol ati ons all eg ed in its moti on for r ev ocat ion

. Jones

v. Sta te , 112 S.W .3d 266, 268 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet .). “ P le a s o f

t rue, sta ndin g alon e, sup port revocation of comm unity supervisi on. ” Id. (ci ti n g Cole v

. St ate , 578 S.W .2d 1 27, 1 28 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 197 9) ; Rivera v. State , 688 S.W .2d 659, 660 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1985, no p et.) ); see a lso Grant v. State , N o. 13 -0 8- 00424- CR , 200 9 W L 13617 01, a t *1 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti M ar . 5, 200 9, pe t. struck) (mem . op. , not designate d for pub lication). At t he r ev ocat ion hear ing , G arz a ans w er ed “ tr ue” to the a ll eg ati ons in the motio n to
re v oke. Ad dit ion all y , G arz a s peci fical ly admi tted usi ng nar cot ic s, faili ng to re por t, and faili ng to pay

the re q uired fees, all in v iol ati on of his co mmunity su per v is ion

. Vi ew ing the
ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav or abl e to the t ri al cou rt ’s d eci si on, w e c oncl ude t hat t he
ev ide nce is su ff ic ien t t o s uppor t r ev ocat ion

. See Jones , 112 S.W .3d a t 268

. A
. Pred et erm in ed Sen te nce In a subi ss ue, G arz a c ontends that the tri al cour t f ail ed to co nsi der

the full ra ng e of puni shment

. Due proces s req uires that the tr ial courtconsi der the full ra ng e of puni shment for an o ffe n s e , t o c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e , a n d n o tt o m e r e l y r e n d e r a p r e d e t e r mi ned sent ence. Howar

d v . St ate , 830 S.W .2d 7 85, 7 8 7 ( T e x. Ap p .–San Antoni o 1992, pet.
re f’d)

. How ev er , in or der to pr eser v e thi s compl ain t for our r ev iew , G arz a mustsh ow that he made a ti mely re q uest , obj ect ion , or moti on to the tr ial co urt. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1.; see Hul l v. State , 6 7 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 1 8 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p
. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e re c o rd in d ic a t e s t h a tG a rzaW e not e t hat i n H e rn a n d e z v . S ta te , w e hel d t hat a def endan t has an a bsol ut e r i ght t o an i m par t i al 1 ju d g e d u r in g s e n te n c in g , a n d th a t “a d e f e n d a n t m a y c o m p la in fo r th e fir s t tim e o n a p p e a l a b o u t a tria l c o u r t's r ef usal ( i

. e. , l ack ofi m par t i al i t y ) t o consi der t he f ul l r ange of puni shm ent

— so l ong as t he t r i al j udge' s cond uct i s so egr egi ous a s t o de em t he j udge bi ased on t he m at t er of puni shm ent

. ” 268 S. W

. 3d 176, 178 ( T ex. App.

– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.). G a rza d o e s n o t a rg u e th a t th e tri a l c o u rt’ s c o n d u c t w a s s o e g re g i o u s a s to i n d i c a te b i a s i n th e m a tte r o f p u n i s h m e n t. See, e. g. , i d. ( h o ld in g th a t b ia s e x is ts w h e r e tr ia l c o u r t s u m m a r ily doubl ed t he p r i or sent ence)

. G ar z a as s er t s t hat t he t r i al cour t shou l d ha v e con si der ed “ hi s cur r ent ci r cum st ances, ” and t hat “ t he t r i al cour t fa i l ed t o consi der pl acem ent at a subst ance abuse f el ony pun i shm ent c e n te r.” T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t i n d i c a te th a t G a rza a c tu a l l y m a d e th i s re q u e s t to th e tri a l c o u rt. A c tu a l ly, in r esponse t o qu est i oni ng f r om hi s at t or ney , G ar z a ad m i t t ed t hat he under st ood t hat “ t he Cour t i s l i m i t ed o n what he can d o wi t h y ou, ” and “ t hat t her e [ ar e] v er y l i t t l e op t i ons a v ai l abl e for a ny k i nd o fdr ug r ehab” as a condi t i on o fpr obat i on. Addi t i onal l y , w hi l e adm oni shi ng G ar z a r egar di ng hi s ri ght s i n t he r ev ocat i on h ear i ng, t he t r i al cour t st at ed:

I fI f i nd t hat y ou h av e v i ol at ed t er m s and condi t i on [ si c] ofy our pr obat i on [ si c] sev er al t hi ngs I c a n d o
. One , I c a n l e a v e i t t h e wa y i t i s , d o n o t h i n g
. I c o u l d s a n c t i o n y o u o r I c o u l d r e v o ke y our p robat i on a nd se nd y ou t o t he T exas Depar t m ent of C r i m i nal Just i ce I nst i t ut i onal D i v i s i o n fo r a p e rio d o f u p to l i fe a n d a s s e s s $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 o n e a c h c o u n t.

“ Based on t he e v i dence pr esent ed, ” t he t r i al cour t adj udi cat ed G ar z a’ s g ui l t and pr onoun ced t he sent ence. W hi l e t he t r i al cour t knew t he se nt ences coul d r un co nsecut i v el y , i t or der ed t he sent ences t o r un concur r ent l y
. “ I n t he a bsence ofa cl ear showi ng t o t he co nt r ar y , a r ev i ewi ng cour t wi l l pr esum e t hat t he t r i al c ou rt w as ne utr al an d d etac he d.” J a e n i c k e v . S ta te , 1 0 9 S .W .3 d 7 9 3 , 7 9 6 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 3 , p e t. r e f ’d ) . T h e r e f o r e , G a r z a ’s f a ilu r e to o b j e c t is n o t e x c u s e d b y H er nande z
.

4 fa il e d t o d o s o ; t h e re fo re , h e d id n o tp re s e rve t h is su b is s u e fo r a p p e ll a t e re vie w. Hull , 67 1 S.W .3d 2 18. B. “Enrage the Co urt” Gar z a r ais es another

su bis sue cl aimi ng that“the State fail ed to meet it s b ur den by a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce and pur posel y broug ht up the under ly ing off ense to
enr ag e the co urt w hic h shoul d hav e conti nued him on communi ty super v is ion .” Gar

z a c it es
no ca se law

nor ma kes any ref eren ce to the record to subst ant iate th is assertion, theref ore he has not pr oper ly

pr esent ed th is i ss ue for our r ev iew

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i) ; City of Cor pus Chr is ti v. T ayl or , 126 S.W .3d 712, 719 n. 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2004, pet.
w it hdr aw n)

. W e ov er ru le Gar z a’s first is sue.5 III
. G R OSS D I SP ROPORTI ONA LI TY In his s ec on d i s s ue , Ga rz a arg ue s , “ [t ]h e tr i al c ou rt’ s t hi rty y ea r [ s i c ] s ent ence
v iol ated the d efendant’ s E ig ht A mendment r ig ht ag ain st cr uel and unusu al puni shment .” The per mis si ble sentenc e rang e f or agg ra v ated sex ual assaul t is fiv e y ears t o ni nety -n ine y ears. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 12.32 (V er non 200 3) ( pr ov idi ng the sent ence for firstdeg re e feloni es) ; id. § 22.0 21 (m aking the sexual assau lt o f a ch ild a f irst-degree felon y ). The tr ial co urt s entenc ed Ga rz a t o tw o ter ms of thi rt y y ears’ i mpri sonmentto ru n
c o n c u rr e n t ly. To pr eser

v e this co mplai nt for

our r ev iew , G arz a musthav e made a ti mely obj ect ion , moti on, o r re q uestto the t ri al cour t. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1.; see Hull , 67 S.W .3d a t 218

. At the t ime the t ri al co u rt p ro n o u n ced the s entenc e, G arz a di d notobj ector make any
re q uest s o r moti ons re g ar din g the sen te n cin g. W e c oncl ude, ther efore, that Gar z a has
w aived this com plaint . W e overrule Garz a’s secon d issue on app eal. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led both of Gar z a’s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________

_________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 28t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.