RODRIGUEZ v. STATE (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Daniel Rodriguez appeals the trial court's judgment revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to ten years' imprisonment. Rodriguez contends the trial court violated his due process rights by predetermining his sentence and refusing to consider the full range of punishment. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

BACKGROUND

On May 1, 2007, Rodriguez pled nolo contendere to the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The trial court assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment, suspended in favor of ten years' community supervision. On August 20, 2014, the State filed a motion to revoke Rodriguez's community supervision, alleging Rodriguez committed a new offense by furnishing alcohol to a minor. During the hearing on the State's motion, the trial court advised Rodriguez he could be sentenced to the original ten-year sentence if the allegation were found to be true. Rodriguez acknowledged his understanding and pled true to the allegation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court continued Rodriguez's community supervision and ordered that Rodriguez spend a weekend in jail and attend alcohol awareness meetings.

On October 15, 2015, the State filed a motion to revoke Rodriguez's community supervision, alleging Rodriguez committed the new offense of possession of a controlled substance and failed to pay fees associated with his community supervision. A hearing was held on the State's motion on January 26, 2016. Before accepting Rodriguez's plea, the trial court advised Rodriguez he could be sentenced to the original ten-year sentence. Rodriguez pled true to the allegation, and the State informed the trial court of its plea agreement with Rodriguez for a four-year sentence. The trial court announced it would not follow the State's recommendation, which was a reduction of Rodriguez's original sentence. The trial court held a separate sentencing hearing, during which Rodriguez reminded the trial court of the State's four-year recommendation and presented mitigating evidence in support of the lighter sentence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated it had reviewed the pre-sentence investigation report and sentenced Rodriguez to ten years' imprisonment. Rodriguez appeals.

DISCUSSION

Rodriguez contends his due process rights were violated because the record establishes the trial court predetermined his sentence. Rodriguez asserts that when the trial court announced during the revocation hearing that it was going to reject the State's four-year punishment recommendation and sentence him to the original ten-year sentence, the trial court improperly predetermined the sentence.

“[D]espite a judge's wide discretion in determining the proper punishment in a revocation hearing, due process requires the right to a hearing before a neutral and detached hearing body.” Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “A court's arbitrary refusal to consider the entire range of punishment is a denial of due process.” Id. Absent a clear showing of bias, however, “a trial court's actions will be presumed to have been correct.” Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

As noted, Rodriguez relies on the trial court's statements during the revocation hearing to support his due process contentions. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, however, has stated that a trial court's admonition alone does not show prejudgment of punishment. Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449, 453 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, such an admonition must be accompanied by additional evidence establishing a trial court's bias or failure to consider the entire range of punishment. See id. at 451-56; see also Howard v. State, 830 S.W.2d 785, 787-89 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1992, pet. ref'd) (relying not only on the trial court's prior admonition but also on statements made by the trial court at the actual sentencing hearing).

In this case, the record does not support a showing of bias or the trial court's failure to consider the full range of punishment. During the revocation hearing, Rodriguez pled true to the allegations, and the trial court found Rodriguez violated the conditions of his community supervision. The following exchange then took place:

[Trial Court]: Is there an agreement as to what we should do?

[The State]: There is, Your Honor. It's to revoke this Defendant and assess him four years TDC. And in exchange for his plea, if he is in fact revoked and assessed TDC time, the State will dismiss Night Mag 286486, which is the new number one.

[Counsel]: That is the agreement, Your Honor.

[Trial Court]: Well, I ain't going to follow that agreement. Mr. Rodriguez, let me tell you why. When you were placed on probation, you knew what your punishment was going to be if you screwed up. Okay? You had a bargain with the Court and the bargain was, do good or go to prison for this sentence. Now, you've done bad. Why in the world should I reduce the sentence that you had originally agreed to? Does that make sense to you, sir?

[Rodriguez]: No, sir.

[The Court]: Well, it does to me. So I'm not going to follow that if you persist in your plea of true, but I'm going to revoke and sentence you to ten years.

(No response.)

[The Court]: Okay. Based on your plea of true, I'll find that you have, in fact, violated the conditions of your probation. The Court is going to go ahead and revoke your probation.

The trial court then ordered a pre-sentence investigation at Rodriguez's request and reset the case for a sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court pronounced Rodriguez's sentence only after listening to all the evidence presented at the hearing, inquiring into the amount of controlled substance involved in the new offense, and reviewing the pre-sentence investigation report. In pronouncing the sentence, the trial court stated: “I've looked at everything, but the Court still believes that the appropriate sentence is to keep the sentence at ten years in this case.”

We conclude the record does not establish the trial court arbitrarily refused to consider the entire range of punishment. Nor does the record contain a clear showing of bias sufficient to overcome the presumption the trial court acted properly.

Accordingly, we overrule Rodriguez's issue on appeal.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Irene Rios, Justice