Jarrick Ryan Crowe v. State ( 2016 )

MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed October 11, 2016.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-00326-CR
No. 05-16-00327-CR
No. 05-16-00328-CR
No. 05-16-00329-CR
JARRICK RYAN CROWE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F15-34070-T, F15-34078-CR, F15-34079-T, F15-76048-T
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Fillmore, and Justice Brown
Opinion by Justice Brown
Jarrick Ryan Crowe waived a jury and pleaded guilty to four robbery offenses. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02(a) (West 2011). The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by a
prior felony conviction, at twenty years’ imprisonment in each case. In four issues, appellant
contends the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to imprisonment and appellant
asserts the judgments should be modified to accurately reflect the names of the prosecutor and
defense counsel and court costs. We modify the trial court’s judgments and affirm as modified.
In his first issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him
to imprisonment because such punishment violates the objectives of the penal code. Appellant
asserts the twenty-year sentences he received are merely punitive and do not meet the penal code
objective of rehabilitation, and he requests probation due to his drug and alcohol addictions and
his post-traumatic stress disorder. The State responds that appellant failed to preserve the issue
for appellate review and, alternatively, that the sentences do indeed meet the objectives of the
penal code.
To preserve error for appellate review, the record must show appellant made a timely request,
objection, or motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1). Constitutional rights, including the right to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment, may be waived. Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120
(Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellant did not object when he was sentenced, nor did he raise this issue
in motions for new trial. Accordingly, he has not preserved the issue for appellate review. See
Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.).
Moreover, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for an offense is neither
excessive nor unconstitutionally cruel or unusual. Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 1997, pet. ref’d); see also Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)
(sentence will not be disturbed on appeal if it is within its statutory range of punishment). Robbery is
a second-degree felony offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of two to twenty years
and an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.33, 29.02(b)
(West 2011). However, appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender because of a prior felony
conviction. Thus, the punishment range increased to imprisonment for five to ninety-nine years
or life and an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(b) (West
Supp. 2015). Appellant’s twenty-year sentences are within the statutory punishment range. We
overrule appellant’s first issue.
In his second and third issues, appellant asks us to modify the trial court’s judgments to
show the names of the prosecutors at the plea and sentencing hearings, and to accurately show
the name of defense counsel. In his fourth issue, appellant asks us to modify the trial court’s
judgment in cause no. 05-16-00328-CR to accurately show the assessment of court costs. The
State agrees that the judgments should be modified as appellant requests.
–2–
The record shows the State was represented by Dalerie Moore during the plea hearing
and Trey Stock during the sentencing hearing, and defense counsel at both hearings was Stuart
Parker. The trial court’s judgments, however, recite the “attorney for State” as “Dalerie Moore”
and the “attorney for defendant” as “S Parker.” We sustain appellant’s second and third issues.
We modify the judgments to show the attorneys for the State were “Dalerie Moore and Trey
Stock,” and the attorney for the defendant was “Stuart Parker.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b);
Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d
526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd).
The judgments in three of the cases shows court costs in the amount of $249. However,
in cause no. 05-16-00328-CR, the judgment incorrectly recites the court costs as “$2479.”
Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment to show court costs are “$249.” Id.
CONCLUSION
In cause nos. 05-16-00326-CR, 05-16-00327-CR, and 05-16-00329-CR, we modify the
trial court’s judgments to show Dalerie Moore and Trey Stock were attorneys for the State and
that Stuart Parker was the attorney for the defendant.
In cause No. 05-16-00328-CR, we modify the trial court’s judgment to show Dalerie
Moore and Trey Stock were attorneys for the State, that Stuart Parker was the attorney for the
defendant, and court costs are $249.
As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in each case.
/Ada Brown/
ADA BROWN
Do Not Publish JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
160326F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JARRICK RYAN CROWE, Appellant On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-16-00326-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F15-34070-T.
Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chief
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justice Wright and Justice Fillmore
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows:
The section entitled “Attorney for State” is modified to show “Dalerie Moore and Trey
Stock.”
The section entitled “Attorney for Defendant” is modified to show “Stuart Parker.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered this 11th day of October, 2016.
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JARRICK RYAN CROWE, Appellant On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-16-00327-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F15-34078-T.
Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chief
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justice Wright and Justice Fillmore
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows:
The section entitled “Attorney for State” is modified to show “Dalerie Moore and Trey
Stock.”
The section entitled “Attorney for Defendant” is modified to show “Stuart Parker.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered this 11th day of October, 2016.
–5–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JARRICK RYAN CROWE, Appellant On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-16-00328-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F15-34079-T.
Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chief
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justice Wright and Justice Fillmore
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows:
The section entitled “Attorney for State” is modified to show “Dalerie Moore and Trey
Stock.”
The section entitled “Attorney for Defendant” is modified to show “Stuart Parker.”
The section entitled “Court Costs” is modified to show “$249.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered this 11th day of October, 2016.
–6–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JARRICK RYAN CROWE, Appellant On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-16-00329-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F15-76048-T.
Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chief
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justice Wright and Justice Fillmore
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows:
The section entitled “Attorney for State” is modified to show “Dalerie Moore and Trey
Stock.”
The section entitled “Attorney for Defendant” is modified to show “Stuart Parker.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered this 11th day of October, 2016.
–7–