Everardo Raul Sanchez Cabrera v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed May 19, 2021
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00293-CR
No. 05-20-00294-CR
No. 05-20-00295-CR
EVERARDO RAUL SANCHEZ CABRERA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 199-82637-2019 CT. I, 199-82637-2019 CT. II,
199-82637-2019 CT. III
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Carlyle
Opinion by Justice Reichek
Everardo Raul Sanchez Cabrera appeals the trial court’s assessment of
punishment following his open pleas of guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual
assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child by contact. In a single
issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to
meaningfully consider the full range of punishment. Concluding appellant’s
arguments are without merit, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
The right to be sentenced by a judge who properly considers the entire range
of punishment is a substantive right necessary to the proper functioning of our
criminal justice system. Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736, 741 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). However, a trial judge is given wide discretion in sentencing and, as long as
the sentence is within the proper range of punishment, and there is some evidence
upon which the trial court could have relied in assessing punishment, we generally
will not disturb the decision on appeal. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1984). In the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, we presume
the trial judge was neutral and detached and that she considered the full range of
punishment when sentencing the defendant. See Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639,
645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
The trial judge in this case assessed appellant’s punishment at forty years’
confinement in each of the aggravated sexual assault cases and twenty years’
confinement in the indecency with a child by contact case. All three sentences were
set to run concurrently. Appellant concedes the sentences imposed are within the
statutorily permissible ranges for the offenses. But he argues it is not apparent from
the record whether the court gave “serious consideration” to a lesser sentence and
“no explanation was given as to why a sentence on the lower end of the range would
not have been just as sufficient in order to protect society and punish the defendant.”
Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, requiring a trial court to
explain or justify on the record the sentence it decides to impose. See Calderon-
Cardona v. State, No. 05-19-00558-CR, 2020 WL 2897096, at *4 (Tex. App.—
–2–
Dallas June 3, 2020, no pet.) (finding appellant’s argument that trial court should
have explicitly explained punishment choice unsupported and unpersuasive).
Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates the trial judge considered less
than the full range of punishment. The court properly admonished appellant
regarding the sentencing ranges applicable to the offenses. During the punishment
hearing, the judge actively questioned the defendant about his testimony to clarify
certain points. After hearing the testimony, the judge spoke at length about the
evidence presented, including that the victim, M.V., was twelve years old when the
offenses occurred and appellant was the forty-four year old father of a young girl.
M.V. testified at the hearing that she and appellant knew each other from
church and she began messaging him on Facebook. After several months of
messaging, appellant asked to meet with M.V. in person. Appellant picked M.V. up
at a car wash near her house and took her to his apartment. Once there, appellant
locked the door, forcibly pulled M.V. into his bedroom, covered the window with a
towel, and sexually assaulted her.
Although appellant contends the judge “gave too little, if any, consideration
to counsel’s argument that the victim and defendant conversed freely before their
meeting, and that she went voluntarily to their initial meeting place,” the record
indicates the opposite. During his closing argument, defense counsel stressed that
the victim initiated the contact with appellant and went with him willingly. The
court responded that, although M.V. may have initiated the contact, it was
–3–
appellant’s responsibility as the adult to set appropriate boundaries. She further
noted that she had a hard time understanding an argument that an eleven to twelve-
year-old girl could be perceived as pursuing someone in a sexual manner. In her
statements immediately prior to sentencing, the judge focused on the fact that
appellant consistently referred to his interactions with the victim as a “game” and
that he appeared to be blaming the child for what had occurred. The judge was
concerned about appellant’s apparent refusal to take responsibility for his actions.
“The discretionary assessment of punishment within the legislatively
prescribed boundaries has long been ingrained and accepted in American
jurisprudence.” Barrow v. State, 207 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
Where, as here, the record fails to show there was any misunderstanding regarding
the correct range of punishment, and it is clear the trial court considered the evidence
before sentencing, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion. See
Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645.
We affirm the trial court’s judgments.
/Amanda L. Reichek/
AMANDA L. REICHEK
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
200293F.U05
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EVERARDO RAUL SANCHEZ On Appeal from the 199th Judicial
CABRERA, Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 199-82637-
No. 05-20-00293-CR V. 2019 CT. I.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Reichek. Justices Schenck and
Carlyle participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered May 19, 2021
–5–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EVERARDO RAUL SANCHEZ On Appeal from the 199th Judicial
CABRERA, Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 199-82637-
No. 05-20-00294-CR V. 2019 CT. II.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Reichek. Justices Schenck and
Carlyle participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered May 19, 2021
–6–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EVERARDO RAUL SANCHEZ On Appeal from the 199th Judicial
CABRERA, Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 199-82637-
No. 05-20-00295-CR V. 2019 CT. III.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Reichek. Justices Schenck and
Carlyle participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered May 19, 2021
–7–