Court Opinion

ID: 9654509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:23:45.77862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:10.129386
License: Public Domain

OPINION
MURPHY, Chief Justice.
Following a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of the offense of aggravated robbery. The issue of punishment was also tried to the jury, and after hearing evidence, punishment was assessed at twenty-two years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant challenges his conviction alleging the trial court erred in dismissing one of the jurors on its own motion after testimony in the case had begun. We affirm.
On July 30, 1996, a jury was sworn, appellant pled not guilty to aggravated robbery, and the State began to present evidence. After the State presented several witnesses, the jury was excused for the day. One of the jurors, Robert Medellin, approached the court at the recess and revealed that during the course of the trial, he realized he knew appellant from high school. On the record, the trial court questioned Mr. Medellin about the impact this realization had upon him and whether he could still be a fair juror. Mr. Medellin, who seemed to have a great deal of trouble expressing himself verbally, implied that he was concerned about the possibility of retaliation. Ultimately, he told the court, ‘Well, I couldn’t make that decision to say guilty or not.” He stated that he did not believe he could follow his oath as a juror. The trial court determined, sua sponte, that Mr. Medellin should be excused.
The trial court informed the attorneys for both sides that he intended to excuse Mr. Medellin. The court summarized Mr. Medellin’s concerns and told the attorneys that Mr. Medellin was biased and prejudiced in favor of appellant, because of his fear of retaliation, and would not be able to render a verdict in favor of the State. Both the prosecutor and appellant’s trial counsel were allowed to question Mr. Medellin. At the end of the questioning, the trial court excused the juror over appellant’s objection. The trial then proceeded to its conclusion with the remaining eleven jurors.
In his sole point of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in excusing Mr. Medellin on its own motion after the case had begun. Appellant claims the trial court’s action invalidated the punishment assessed, and he is therefore entitled to a reversal for a new punishment hearing.
After he was found guilty by the jury, appellant testified on his own behalf during *738the punishment phase of the trial. While testifying, he repeatedly and clearly admitted his guilt. He admitted to having committed aggravated robbery, stated he was remorseful, and asked the jury for leniency. A defendant’s admission of guilt during the trial’s punishment phase waives any non-jurisdictional error that may have occurred during the trial’s guilt/innocence phase. McGlothlin v. State, 896 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); DeGarmo v. State, 691 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). This concept of law is known as the DeGarmo doctrine and has been described as a common sense rule of procedure. McGlothlin, 896 S.W.2d at 187.
Based on DeGarmo, the State argues appellant has waived any error concerning the trial court’s decision to excuse Mr. Medellin. Appellant admits that he has waived any error that occurred during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial; however, he argues he is entitled to a new punishment hearing because under the DeGarmo doctrine, an admission of guilt during the punishment phase does not waive errors that occurred at the punishment phase of the trial. Appellant contends that because he elected to have the same jury determine his guilt and assess his punishment, he was entitled to have Mr. Medellin assess his punishment. Appellant apparently believes that excusing Mr. Medellin was an error that occurred twice, once during the guilt/innocence phase, and again during the punishment phase. We disagree.
The trial court dismissed one juror, Mr. Medellin, during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial. Error, if any, occurred when the court actually dismissed the juror, not later at the punishment phase of the trial. Thus, we hold that appellant waived any error based on the trial court’s decision to dismiss Mr. Medellin from the jury when he admitted his guilt during the punishment phase of the trial. See McGlothlin, 896 S.W.2d at 186; DeGarmo, 691 S.W.2d at 661; Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 925 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1995, no pet.) (holding that the defendant’s admission of guilt during the punishment phase waived any potential sources of error which may have arisen out of actions taken by the trial court during the trial’s guilt/innocence phase).
Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s point of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.