Knox, Patrick Antuan v. State ( 2015 )

"IST-IS
In 1he.
Court' bfJLX\rr\i{\ol Qpptnjs . AbetAcosfrCtarj,
0f I£fes
Q.uk^jiih_Jk&a»s __________ - - .
•^r.a
" "A I, fiaWTtn^"
/ courtop^d,n
COUR-T-OFCRIMINALAPPEALS
—%^t- wtzzms-
„ JA-
J ht Xoarf Of___Q."[_S„ _ A^ Acosta, clerk
D____'_b_|_l_e^.__5
Bn_£ far fcke^ CWollanf
loo km, TJC ^$454
4.
#
dmbki 6Y iW/ea' find Counsel
4 CoOfir Of piffeais/FM 0,£hc,f~ OF 7<>kai
^ (oQQCommm^ __.
J Dfif]^,7X.J^.^€^__
(%o(Ct (IWe, [in11:
TO0_ jV(j_J_j!/L &7
fWhom, U 7S454
..__4_
&.
f
__.jAc_ aoiuu^r _Q.ou^O(_)in.k__ Cacseci,. ,....
-+-
•
•i-
1
<
'
•
•^ i1
!
ft
Tajoit Of^oitob ._
.__ \Aqx\(^U 01" rarf/es and _... ...
3uur>seJ ( ( i K^y>
- ^Wenf- fegfi/dtnQ heed ftrg/jmenf
qurnenf ^ • • I
__ __.JuJb(^ j
J -—- a
.._ inokl r£ Pjufhorik'o n_ —•
. ^
s
Sic^.it^pJl_.of_ih^_C(Ml^ _. ^
'
\o
__ Cyrounds ft^ l?eu»>^o ^ ^.
V. ™*
7
,()lgit (Y\Pnir QP &-J5 j «.
-_ ™r>
~!-%
AummamJ)LRfciumtot...?.. ~-
-__. *s
-^
--0
... J&i9umer_r_, i '._..; ;
_*
—
..a. _Px#M.e,_r ^ **
—
- m
^ ..jCer&JEu^oie^_^ *r
m
—
Li-nde^ OF fliAbor>i-Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. We overrule Knox's second issue.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
/ Craig Stoddart/
CRAIG STODDART
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
140551F.U05
-6-
first issue.
B. Sentencing
Knox argues in his second issue that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him
to prison "without articulating sufficient reason and for disregarding mitigation evidence
presented by the defense." It is unclear whether this issue asserts the trial judge was biased or
some other error in the sentencing process. From the argument and authorities cited in the brief,
we consider the issue as raising a due process challenge to the sentence. However, Knox did not
object to the sentence or otherwise bring this complaint to the attention of the trial court. We
doubt Knox preserved this issue for review, however, we conclude the record shows no partiality
by the trial court or that an improper sentence was imposed. See Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d
639, 644-45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (reserving question whether objection in trial court is
required to preserve error regarding partiality of the trial court or imposition of a predetermined
sentence).
"Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer." Brumit, 206
S.W.3d at 645. "[A] trial court's arbitrary refusal to consider the entire range of punishment in a
particular case violates due process." Ex Parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449, 456 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005); see also Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. But "[ajbsent a clear showing of bias, a trial court's
actions will be presumed to have been correct." Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. Bias is not shown
when (1) the trial court hears extensive evidence before assessing punishment, (2) the record
contains explicit evidence that the trial court considered the full range of punishment, and (3) the
trial court made no comments indicating consideration of less than the full range of punishment.
See id.; see also Brown, 158 S.W.3d at 456.
The record shows the trial court heard punishment evidence and the arguments of
counsel. Appellant requested probation and the State requested a sentence of twenty years. After
-5-
Court of Appeals
Mttty Btstrttt of Qtexaa at Dallas
JUDGMENT
PATRICK ANTUAN KNOX, Appellant On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District
Court, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-14-00551-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 380-81027-2013.
Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang and Schenck participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 28th day of May, 2015.
-7-