Pedro Rodriguez, Jr. v. State ( 2015 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14-00227-CR
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, JR.,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 272nd District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 09-03781-CRF-272
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pedro Rodriguez, Jr. appeals from a judgment revoking his community
supervision for the offense of robbery. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 29.02 (West 2011). After
a contested revocation proceeding, the trial court revoked Rodriguez’s community
supervision and sentenced him to ten years in prison. Rodriguez complains that the
trial court denied him due process of law by refusing to consider the entire range of
punishment and to consider the evidence that was presented on his behalf. Because we
find that this complaint was not properly preserved, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court. We also deny the State’s motion to supplement the record as moot.
At the beginning of the hearing on the motion to revoke Rodriguez’s community
supervision, the trial court was advised that Rodriguez had stopped complying with all
of the terms of his probation for approximately 18 months prior to the hearing,
including reporting to his community supervision officer or completing community
service. Since being placed on community supervision, Rodriguez had also been
convicted of burglary of a building, was discharged from his outpatient drug treatment
after successfully completing SAFPF, and had a positive drug test. The trial court asked
Rodriguez’s counsel at that time:
What are you going to do to counteract this obvious attack by the State
that he's had a robbery probation, picked up a State jail while on
probation and, then, just stops reporting? What — what is — what
conceivably could be a reason I wouldn't want to revoke him for the full
term and put him in prison? Go ahead, sir.
After the trial court’s question, Rodriguez’s trial counsel informed the trial court
that he intended to present witnesses in an effort to convince the trial court to allow
Rodriguez to continue on community supervision.
At the end of the hearing, after Rodriguez’s trial counsel’s closing argument
which asked the trial court to continue Rodriguez on community supervision, the trial
court pronounced sentence as follows:
No, sir. I can't do that. Stand up, sir.
Rodriguez v. State Page 2
I find all the allegations to be true and hereby revoke your probation. I
assess your punishment at ten years in the Institutional Division of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. I'm not sure you'll benefit, sir, by
prison; but the system will benefit because we cannot allow people just to
stop reporting. That's the cardinal sin; and you just decided that you were
not going to report any more; so, that put you in prison, that decision right
there.
And you got some good things going for you. You got a nice fiancee there
and a lot of reasons to – to do right and go on; but you made the conscious
decision you're not going to report; so, that's just automatic. You're going
to prison. Automatic.
Rodriguez’s trial counsel did not object or otherwise complain to the trial court
regarding the trial court’s statements. In this appeal, Rodriguez complains that the trial
court’s statements during the pronouncement of his sentence demonstrate that the trial
court violated his due process rights by refusing to consider the full range of
punishment or the evidence that he had presented on his behalf.
A trial court denies due process of law and due course of law when it arbitrarily
refuses to consider the full range of punishment for an offense or refuses to consider the
evidence and imposes a predetermined sentence. Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449, 454
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Teixeira v. State, 89 S.W.3d 190, 192 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002,
pet. ref'd). However, complaints of due process violations can be waived by failing to
object in the trial court. Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
("Indeed, our prior decisions make clear that numerous constitutional rights, including
those that implicate a defendant's due process rights, may be forfeited for purposes of
appellate review unless properly preserved.").
Rodriguez v. State Page 3
The record establishes that Rodriguez did not make a due process objection to
the trial court. Accordingly, Rodriguez failed to properly preserve his complaint for
appellate review, and therefore, his complaint is waived. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. We
overrule Rodriguez’s sole issue.
Conclusion
Having found that Rodriguez’s complaint was not properly preserved, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed July 30, 2015
Do not publish
[CR25]
Rodriguez v. State Page 4