Court Opinion

ID: 9929282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 08:16:02.738155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:08:05.930679
License: Public Domain

In The

                           Court of Appeals

                Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                           __________________

                          NO. 09-22-00139-CR
                           __________________

                MICHAEL EZRA HOOKS, Appellant

                                    V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

            On Appeal from the 356th District Court
                      Hardin County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 25,276
__________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

     To resolve the issues in this appeal, we must decide whether the

trial court erred by trying Michael Ezra Hooks in absentia. 1 In three

issues, Hooks argues that because the record does not show that he

entered a plea to the indictment, by trying him in absentia the trial court

     1Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.04 (Unlawful Possession of Firearm).

                                    1
violated his state and federal constitutional rights under the

Confrontation Clause, his right to Due Process, and his right to be

present for his trial under article 33.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure. 2 We address Hooks’ issues together because Hooks did not

separate the arguments that he relied on but instead briefed his issues

together.

     Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2, we must assume

that Hooks entered a plea of not guilty to the indictment since the record

doesn’t affirmatively show otherwise. Because the appellate record

supports the trial court’s conclusion that Hooks’ decision not to attend his

trial was voluntary, we conclude that Hooks hasn’t shown his

constitutional or statutory rights were violated. For the reasons

explained below, we overrule his issues and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

     2U.S. CONST. amends. V, VI, XIV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 10; Tex. Code

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 33.03.
                                     2
                              Background

     In March 2019, a grand jury charged Hooks with violating the felon-

in-possession statute. 3 In September 2020, the State notified Hooks that

if convicted, it would seek to enhance his punishment to the punishment

range available for punishing repeat and habitual felony offenders. 4 The

notice the State filed alleges that Hooks had incurred five felony

convictions before he was charged with unlawfully possessing a weapon.

The notice states that Hooks has prior convictions for (1) burglarizing a

habitation, (2) theft, (3) aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, (4)

assault on a public servant, and (5) indecency with a child.

     On Monday, March 14, 2022, the trial court called the case to trial.

The reporter’s record reflects the trial court had a jury panel available

that day, but the jury was not in the courtroom. Outside the jury’s

presence, the trial court asked Hooks whether he wanted a bench trial or

     3Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.04 (prohibiting a felon from possessing

a firearm in any location other than his home after incurring a conviction
for a felony and prohibiting a felon from possessing a firearm in their
home for five years from the person’s release from confinement,
community supervision, or parole).
      4See id. § 12.42 (Penalties for Repeat and Habitual Felony

Offenders on Trial for a First-, Second-, or Third-Degree Felony).
                                     3
whether he wanted “to go to trial to a jury?” Hooks said: “I’d rather do a

bench trial.” When the trial court asked Hooks whether he was sure,

Hooks answered: “Yes, sir.” The judge set the case for a bench trial and

advised the parties that the trial would begin on Wednesday, March 16,

2022. The judge also ordered the parties to be in court by 8:45 a.m. Hooks

told the trial court that he would be there at “7:00 o’clock.”

     On Wednesday, March 16, 2022, the first thing the trial court did

after opening court was conduct a docket call, which included Hooks’ case.

The reporter’s record shows that Hooks’ attorney and the attorney for the

State were present for the docket call. After the trial court called the

docket, the trial court noted:

     It is now -- call it 9:08 -- at least, 9:08. Michael Hooks is not
     in the courtroom. Call his name, please, at the door three
     times. And he was ordered to be here.

     When the bailiff told the trial court there was no response, the trial

court asked Hooks’ attorney whether he had anything to say. Hooks’

attorney told the trial court that he was “expecting [Hooks] to be here

any moment[,]” but that he “hadn’t had any contact with him since

Monday.” The judge then asked the bailiff to look for Hooks in the

courthouse.
                                     4
     When the bailiff returned to the courtroom, he told the trial court

that Hooks had “not even [been] seen coming across the parking lot or

anything.” The trial court noted that it didn’t wish to proceed without

Hooks, but on Monday the court had gotten the impression “that [Hooks]

didn’t want a trial in any shape, form, or fashion. And my feeling is

[Hooks] has voluntarily absented himself from this court. And [Hooks’

attorney] said he hadn’t talked to him since then.”

     The trial court also asked Hooks’ attorney whether he had

“anything” to say. The attorney said that Hooks told him “on Monday that

he was feeling a little sick. So I don’t know if he got sick or – if that’s an

excuse.”

     The trial court also asked Hooks’ attorney whether he had Hooks’

phone number. The attorney told the judge that he had “a number for his

sister[,]” as he “believe[d] [Hooks] was staying there.” The trial court

called a recess to allow Hooks’ attorney to call the number he had for

Hooks, but the judge warned that after the recess, “we’re going to start.”

Around 9:45 that morning, the reporter’s record shows that Hooks’

attorney told the trial court that although he had telephoned Hooks’

sister, no one answered.
                                      5
     The judge asked the bailiff to check again to see if Hooks was in the

hall or “anywhere on the premises.” When the bailiff came back, the

bailiff advised the trial court that he had checked in the parking lot and

the areas downstairs from the courtroom in the courthouse, but that

Hooks was not there.

     At 9:51, the trial court instructed the State to call its first witness.

But before the State did so, Hooks’ attorney moved for a continuance in

an oral, unsworn motion. According to the attorney, he had filed a

subpoena with the sheriff’s department and asked that the subpoena be

served on a witness who had not yet been served. The motion for

continuance was denied, but the trial court told the attorney the court

would reconsider the motion after hearing the testimony of the State’s

witnesses. The trial court explained that after hearing the testimony, the

court might “consider taking a recess so one of our deputies can go find

[the person on whom the attorney wanted the subpoena served].”

     After the trial court denied the motion for continuance, Hooks’

attorney lodged one more objection: “I would object to having the Court

go forward with this trial without the Defendant being present in the

courtroom.” The trial court overruled that objection, stating:
                                     6
     The Court doesn’t want to proceed without him, but he knew
     to be here. And I’ve already stated on the record the Court’s
     observations. And I believe he has voluntarily chosen not to
     be here. Now if I find out that some horrible – something has
     befallen him, well, then we’ll go from there. And I think that’s
     unlikely.

     The State then called its first witness. At 11:25 that morning and

before the parties began questioning the third witness who testified in

the case, the trial court asked Hooks’ attorney if he had heard from

Hooks. In response, the attorney said: “No, your Honor.”

     After the parties completed questioning the State’s fourth witness,

the State rested. Hooks’ attorney announced that he was calling the

witness that he made the subject of his motion for continuance based on

his unserved subpoena, but the witness did not answer the bailiff’s call.

After that, Hooks’ attorney made a proffer about what the witness that

he wanted to call would have said had the witness testified, and then he

rested.

     After a recess for lunch, at 1:00 o’clock that afternoon the trial court

asked Hooks’ attorney whether he’d heard from Hooks or his sister.

Hooks’ attorney said he’d gotten no “phone messages from Mr. Hooks or

his sister.” The attorneys for the parties presented closing argument, the

                                     7
trial court found Hooks guilty, revoked his bond, and told the attorneys

the sentencing hearing in Hooks’ case would occur at 9:00 a.m. on April

14th.

        On April 14th, Hooks and his attorney appeared for the hearing

regarding Hooks’ sentence. Hooks’ attorney objected to proceeding with

the sentencing hearing, and he argued “we didn’t have a proper trial since

[Hooks] wasn’t [t]here. So I object to you sentencing him [in Trial Court

Cause Number 25276] today because I don’t think that that case was

valid.” The trial court overruled the objection, and found that Hooks had

“voluntarily absented” himself from trial, explaining:

               [W]hen you asked me to go to a bench trial and you and
        your lawyer both showed up here and you signed your waiver,
        I had 60 people literally sitting behind you waiting. So you
        made that decision – y’all made that decision to proceed on
        Wednesday – to continue a trial until Wednesday. Then you
        didn’t show up. So – and then now you’re going to complain
        that something was wrong about that? Well I respectfully
        disagree.
               I find you voluntarily absented yourself. You did not
        show up because you didn’t want to go Monday, and
        apparently you didn’t want to go Wednesday. So here we are.
        So you asked all along, you and your lawyer: I want a jury
        trial, a jury trial. Then I finally get one here, and [n]ow we
        don’t want that; we want a bench trial. So are you ready to
        start the sentencing?

                                      8
     Then, Hooks’ attorney noted that although a presentence

investigation report had been prepared, the probation officer had not

interviewed Hooks in preparing the report because according to Hooks’

attorney, the probation officer “didn’t know how to get a hold of him at

the time.” The trial court decided to reset the sentencing hearing to allow

the probation department to update its report.

     On April 25, 2022, the trial court conducted the sentencing hearing.

Hooks was present for the hearing. During the hearing and relying on

the objection that he had raised at Hooks’ trial, Hooks’ attorney objected

to the proceeding with the sentencing hearing stating that because Hooks

had not attended his trial, Hooks was “not properly before the Court for

sentencing.” The trial court overruled the objection. Hooks subsequently

pleaded “True” to committing four of the five felonies listed in the notice

the State filed identifying the felonies the State intended to use to prove

that Hooks was subject to being punished as a repeat and habitual felony

offender under section 12.42 of the Penal Code.5 In the hearings on April

     5Id. During the hearing, the State abandoned the fifth count in the

notice the State filed regarding its intent to prove that Hooks had prior
felony convictions. The fifth count is the count alleging that in October
                                     9
14th and April 25th, Hooks never presented any evidence to explain why

he didn’t attend the guilt-innocence phase of his trial.

      After considering the arguments the attorneys presented to the

court in the hearing and its finding that Hooks unlawfully possessed the

firearm, as alleged in the indictment, the trial court sentenced Hooks to

prison for fifty years.

                             Standard of Review

      “It is well settled in this state that a plea must be entered in every

criminal case and if no plea is entered, the trial is a nullity, since there

is no issue for the jury or the court.” 6 That said, under the rules of

appellate procedure, unless it was “disputed in the trial court, or unless

the record affirmatively shows the contrary, on appeal the court of

appeals must presume” [ ] “that the defendant was arraigned” and “that

the   defendant    pleaded    to   the   indictment   or   other   charging

instrument[.]”7

2013, Hooks was convicted of the offense of indecency with a child in a
case in Hardin County.
      6Lumsden v. State, 384 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964).
      7Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(c)(4).

                                   10
                                 Analysis

     Each of Hooks’ issues relies on his theory that the trial court

convicted him without a plea. To begin, we agree with Hooks that the

appellate record doesn’t show that Hooks entered a plea. That said, the

record also doesn’t show he did not enter a plea or show that a plea of not

guilty was not entered on his behalf. Additionally, the judgment reflects

Hooks entered a plea, and as mentioned, Rule 44.2(c)(4) requires

appellate courts to assume that the defendant entered a plea unless the

record affirmatively shows otherwise.

     We also note that the appellate record doesn’t include a record from

Hooks’ arraignment. “An arraignment takes place for the purpose of

fixing [the defendant’s] identity and hearing his plea.”8 We recognize that

defendants may waive their right to arraignment, but in Hooks’ case, the

appellate record doesn’t include a signed waiver. 9 Thus, on the silent

     8Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.02.
     9Id. art. 26.011 (authorizing the defendant’s attorney to “present a

waiver of arraignment” to the clerk).
                                   11
record we have here, we must presume that Hooks either entered a plea

or that the trial court entered a plea of not guilty for him.10

     On appeal, Hooks hasn’t argued the evidence doesn’t support the

trial court’s conclusion that Hooks’ absence was voluntary. Even had he

made that argument, Hooks probably could not have shown that his

absence was involuntary on a record that reveals he knew his case was

going to trial, and he failed to communicate with the court or his attorney

on the day of the trial to explain why he wasn’t there. Moreover, after the

trial, Hooks never offered an excuse to indicate that his absence was

anything other than voluntary. So even when we liberally construe

Hooks’ brief and assume his arguments include a claim challenging the

trial court’s finding that his absence was voluntary, we will not overturn

the judgment on the appellate record that we have here.11

                                Conclusion

     10Id. art. 26.12.
     11Moore   v. State, 670 S.W.2d 259, 261 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)
(rejecting an argument that there was insufficient evidence to support
the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant’s absence was voluntary
when the record showed the defendant knew when and where he was to
appear, the defendant failed to communicate with his attorney or the
court on the morning of the trial, and the defendant offered no excuse
following the trial for his failure to attend his trial).
                                      12
     When Hooks was in the trial court, the appellate record shows that

his attorney never claimed that Hooks didn’t enter a plea. On a silent

record, we must assume that Hooks entered a plea before he was tried.12

Consequently, the premise on which Hooks bases his entire appeal—that

he was tried without first entering a plea—has no merit. Because the

factual premise on which Hooks’ issues rely lack merit, we overrule his

issues that his constitutional and statutory rights were violated because

he was tried without the benefit of a plea. Accordingly, the trial court’s

judgment is,

     AFFIRMED.

                                                   HOLLIS HORTON
                                                      Justice

Submitted on November 21, 2023
Opinion Delivered January 31, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

     12Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(c)(4).

                                     13