Court Opinion

ID: 9389719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 06:07:50.228664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.207376
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed April 19, 2023

                                   S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-21-00785-CR
                               No. 05-21-00786-CR

               CHRISTOPHER ALLEN JOHNSON, Appellant
                                V.
                    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. F-2056527-Q

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
              Before Justices Molberg, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle
                           Opinion by Justice Molberg
      Appellant Christopher Johnson appeals his convictions for burglary of a

habitation and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. In this appeal, appellant argues

that the trial court erred by assessing duplicative court costs; violated his common

law right to allocution; and violated his rights under the penal code by sentencing

him to ten years’ confinement for burglary of a habitation and fifteen months for

unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. For the reasons given below, we will modify

the judgment in the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle case to delete court costs

and otherwise affirm in this memorandum opinion.
                                    Background

      Appellant was indicted for burglary of a habitation, enhanced by an allegation

of a prior robbery conviction, and for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Prior to

the plea hearing, the State moved to strike the robbery enhancement paragraph, and

the trial court granted the motion to strike. On August 5, 2021, appellant made an

“open plea” of guilty to the trial court on both offenses, and a punishment hearing

was conducted. After hearing testimony and arguments from counsel, the trial court

sentenced appellant to ten years’ confinement for burglary of a habitation and fifteen

months’ confinement for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.            After setting

punishment, the trial court asked, “Is there any legal reason why these sentences

should not be imposed at this time?” Counsel for appellant responded, “No legal

reason, Judge.” Appellant was also assessed $290 in court costs in the unauthorized

use of a motor vehicle case, and he was assessed $290 in court costs in the burglary

of a habitation case. This appeal followed.

                                     Discussion

      Appellant argues in his first issue that court costs should have been assessed

in just one of the cases pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article

102.073. The State agrees. Article 102.073 provides in pertinent part: “In a single

criminal action in which a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses or of

multiple counts of the same offense, the court may assess each court cost or fee only

once against the defendant.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.073(a). In this statute,

                                         –2–
“single criminal action” means “allegations and evidence of more than one

offense . . . [which] are presented in a single trial or plea proceeding[.]” Hurlburt v.

State, 506 S.W.3d 199, 203 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, no pet.) (quoting Ex parte

Pharr, 897 S.W.2d 795, 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)); see also Burton v. State, No.

05-18-00608-CR, 2019 WL 3543580, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 5, 2019, no

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In such an action, “each court cost

or fee the amount of which is determined according to the category of offense must

be assessed using the highest category of offense that is possible based on the

defendant’s convictions.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.073(b).

         Here, appellant’s burglary of a habitation (appellate cause number 05-21-

00786-CR, trial cause number F-2061137-Q, second degree felony1) and

unauthorized use of a motor vehicle offense (appellate cause number 05-21-00785-

CR, trial cause number F-2056527-Q, state jail felony2) were presented in and

disposed of in one plea proceeding. Thus, appellant was convicted of two offenses

in a single criminal action, and court costs should have been assessed only once.

Accordingly, we agree with the parties, and as we may modify the trial court’s

judgment to make the record speak the truth when we have the necessary information

to do so,3 we will reform the judgment in the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle

   1
       See TEX. PENAL CODE § 30.02(c)(2).
   2
       See TEX. PENAL CODE § 31.07(b).
   3
       See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

                                                   –3–
case to delete the court costs in that cause because court costs were assessed in the

higher-degree burglary of a habitation case. See Krenzer v. State, No. 05-21-00444-

CR, 2022 WL 17423464, at *9 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 6, 2022, pet. ref’d) (mem.

op., not designated for publication) (“Generally, the costs should be assessed in the

case with the highest category offense . . . .”).

      In his second issue, appellant argues the trial court violated his common law

right to allocution.    “Allocution” refers to the trial court’s asking a criminal

defendant to speak in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed, but it has also “come

to denote the accused person’s speech in mitigation of the sentence, rather than the

judge’s address asking the accused to speak.” Eisen v. State, 40 S.W.3d 628, 632

(Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. ref’d) (quoting A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage

45 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 2nd ed., Oxford 1995)). Allocution is codified in current

Texas law in article 42.07 of the code of criminal procedure. Id. Under that

provision, “Before pronouncing sentence, the defendant shall be asked whether he

has anything to say why the sentence should not be pronounced against him.” TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.07. The “only reasons” a sentence cannot be pronounced

under the statute are that the defendant has received a pardon; the defendant is

incompetent to stand trial; and, in the event of escape prior to sentencing and

subsequent rearrest, if a question of identity needs to be decided by the fact finder.

See id.

                                          –4–
         Appellant concedes that the trial court complied with article 42.07 by

inquiring if there was any legal reason why the sentences should not be imposed, but

he argues that the trial court erred “by failing to afford appellant an opportunity to

exercise his common law right to allocution,” which, he argues, is broader than

statutory allocution.4 We observe that, “[f]ollowing the enactment of code of

criminal procedure article 42.07, the questions of whether the statute encompassed

the same scope as the former common-law practice, or, if not, whether the statute

supplanted any potential broader reach of the common-law right remained

unanswered.” Casselberry v. State, No. 05-22-00014-CR, 2022 WL 14381667, at

*2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 25, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication).

         Regardless, “[t]o complain on appeal of the denial of the right of allocution,

whether statutory or one claimed under the common law, controlling precedent

requires that a defendant timely object.” Id.; see also Gallegos–Perez v. State, No.

05-16-00015-CR, 2016 WL 6519113, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 1, 2016, no

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Here, appellant did not object to

the denial of statutory or common law allocution. He thus failed to preserve this

issue for appeal. Although appellant raised this complaint in a motion for new trial,

“an appellant may raise a sentencing issue in a motion for new trial for the first time

   4
       Appellant points to Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 304 (1961).
                                                   –5–
only if the appellant did not have the opportunity to object in the punishment

hearing.” Burt v. State, 396 S.W.3d 574, 577 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Here,

appellant had an opportunity to object in the punishment hearing to any denial of

allocution; therefore, we conclude this issue is not preserved for our review. See

Loring v. State, No. 05-18-00421-CR, 2019 WL 3282962, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas

July 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding

complaint that appellant was denied his common law right to allocution was not

preserved for appellate review when first raised in motion for new trial).

Accordingly, appellant’s second issue is overruled.

      Finally, appellant argues the sentences imposed by the trial court violate his

rights under the enumerated objectives of the penal code. As a prerequisite to

presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show the complaint was

made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion stating the grounds

for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient

specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint. See TEX. R. APP. P.

33.1(a). “This prerequisite applies to . . . a complaint that a sentence violates a

defendant’s rights under the objectives of the Texas Penal Code.” Hicks v. State,

No. 05-20-00614-CR, 2021 WL 3042672, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 19, 2021,

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Here, again, appellant did not

object at the punishment hearing to the sentences on the basis that they violated his

rights under the penal code. But, as above, appellant raised this complaint for the

                                        –6–
first time in his motion for new trial. Again, we must conclude appellant had an

opportunity to object to his sentences during the punishment hearing, and the motion

for new trial thus did not preserve this complaint for our review. See Burt v. State,

396 S.W.3d at 577 n.4; Nelson v. State, No. 05-19-00290-CR, 2020 WL 1512488,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 30, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication) (concluding complaint that sentence was violative of penal code’s

objectives was not preserved when raised for the first time in motion for new trial).

Appellant’s third issue is overruled.

                                        Conclusion

      We modify the trial court’s judgment in trial court cause number F-2056527-

Q to remove “$290.00” from the space beneath “Court Costs” and insert “$0” in its

place. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

                                             /Ken Molberg/
                                             KEN MOLBERG
                                             JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
210785F.U05

                                           –7–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN                            On Appeal from the 204th Judicial
JOHNSON, Appellant                           District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. F-2056527-Q.
No. 05-21-00785-CR          V.               Opinion delivered by Justice
                                             Molberg. Justices Partida-Kipness
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 and Carlyle participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

      We REMOVE “$290” from the space beneath “Court Costs” and
      INSERT “$0” in its place.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered April 19, 2023

                                       –8–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN                            On Appeal from the 204th Judicial
JOHNSON, Appellant                           District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. F-2061137-Q.
No. 05-21-00786-CR          V.               Opinion delivered by Justice
                                             Molberg. Justices Partida-Kipness
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 and Carlyle participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered April 19, 2023

                                       –9–