Kevin Don Sinquefield v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                  NOS. 12-13-00092-CR
    12-13-00093-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
    TYLER, TEXAS
    KEVIN DON SINQUEFIELD,                           §      APPEALS FROM THE 241ST
    APPELLANT
    V.                                               §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    APPELLEE                                         §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Kevin Don Sinquefield appeals his convictions for robbery and forgery against an elderly
    individual.   In two issues on appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court’s assessment of
    restitution. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Appellant was charged by separate indictments with the offenses of robbery and forgery
    against an elderly individual. Each indictment also included an enhancement paragraph, alleging
    that Appellant had been convicted of a felony prior to the commission of the charged offense.
    Appellant entered an open plea of “guilty” to the offenses charged in the indictments and pleaded
    “true” to the enhancement paragraph in each indictment. In both cases, Appellant also signed an
    agreed punishment recommendation in which he agreed to a special condition of his
    recommended sentence “being payment of RESTITUTION in the amount to be determined by
    the PSI.”
    The trial court accepted Appellant’s pleas of guilty and adjudicated him guilty of robbery
    and forgery against an elderly individual.      The trial court also ordered a full presentence
    investigation report (PSI) in both cases. In the combined PSI, restitution for the robbery offense
    was stated to be $3,059.75, and restitution for the forgery offense was stated to be $6,850.00.
    At the sentencing hearing, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at life
    imprisonment for his robbery conviction, along with court costs and restitution “as determined to
    be due by a post-sentence.” Further, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at twenty
    years of imprisonment for his forgery conviction, along with court costs and restitution in an
    amount to be determined by a “post-sentence.” The judgments of conviction included restitution
    in the amounts stated in the PSI.       The trial court ordered that Appellant’s sentences run
    concurrently. This appeal followed.
    RESTITUTION
    In his first and second issues, Appellant argues that the restitution ordered in both cases
    should be vacated because the trial court did not orally pronounce the amount of restitution in
    open court.
    Standard of Review
    An appellate court reviews challenges to restitution orders under an abuse of discretion
    standard. Cartwright v. State, 
    605 S.W.2d 287
    , 289 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980);
    Drilling v. State, 
    134 S.W.3d 468
    , 469 (Tex. App.–Waco 2004, no pet.). In order to preserve
    error concerning a restitution order, however, the record must show that a complaint was made to
    the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the grounds for the ruling that
    the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial
    court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context. See
    TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); see also Lemos v. State, 
    27 S.W.3d 42
    , 47 (Tex. App.–San
    Antonio 2000, pet. ref'd) (concluding defendant waived complaint by failing to dispute funeral
    expenses portion of restitution order at sentencing). In other words, if a defendant wishes to
    complain about the appropriateness of (as opposed to the factual basis for) a trial court’s
    restitution order, he must do so in the trial court, and he must do so explicitly. Idowu v. State, 
    73 S.W.3d 918
    , 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
    Applicable Law
    In addition to any fine authorized by law, a sentencing court may order the defendant to
    make restitution to any victim of the offense. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.037(a)
    (West Supp. 2012). Article 42.03, Section 1(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states
    that a sentence shall be pronounced in the defendant’s presence. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
    2
    ANN. art. 42.03, § 1(a) (West Supp. 2012). This means that a defendant’s sentence must be
    orally pronounced in his presence. See Taylor v. State, 
    131 S.W.3d 497
    , 500 (Tex. Crim. App.
    2004).
    Analysis
    Here, Appellant does not complain about the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
    amount of the restitution awards or about restitution as a special condition of his recommended
    sentence. Instead, he points out that the amounts of the awards were not orally pronounced in his
    presence. However, we conclude that Appellant has waived his complaint.
    Appellant argues that the facts in his case are similar to those in Burt v. State, 
    396 S.W.3d 574
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). In Burt, the defendant complained that the restitution in
    his orally pronounced sentence was different from the sentence in the written judgment, and that
    the amount in the written judgment improperly included losses from alleged victims not named
    in the indictment. See 
    id. at 578.
    The court noted that the defendant could not have objected
    during the oral pronouncement because at that point, he could not have known that the sentence
    in the written judgment would be different from the orally pronounced sentence or that there
    might be an error in the amount of restitution. See 
    id. Nor could
    he have known to include
    restitution as an issue in his motion for new trial because the written judgment was not issued
    until after his motion for new trial was filed and heard. See 
    id. Therefore, the
    court concluded
    that the defendant did not forfeit his challenge to the restitution order because it was impossible
    for him to raise the restitution issue at trial. See 
    id. Burt is
    readily distinguishable from the cases before us. In these cases, the trial court
    orally pronounced that the amount of restitution would be “as determined to be due by a post-
    sentence.” The judgment in each case included the amount of restitution stated in the PSI for the
    corresponding offense. And the judgments were signed the day after the sentencing hearing.
    Therefore, Appellant had ample opportunity to file a motion for new trial or other postjudgment
    motion to complain that the trial court did not orally pronounce the amounts of restitution in
    open court. However, he failed to do so. Consequently, unlike the defendant in Burt, Appellant
    waived his challenge to the restitution orders because he failed to preserve his complaint in the
    trial court. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s first and second issues.
    3
    DISPOSITION
    We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
    JAMES T. WORTHEN
    Chief Justice
    Opinion delivered October 23, 2013.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
    (DO NOT PUBLISH)
    4
    COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    JUDGMENT
    OCTOBER 23, 2013
    NO. 12-13-00092-CR
    12-13-00093-CR
    KEVIN DON SINQUEFIELD,
    Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    Appeals from the 241st District Court
    of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.Nos. 241-1707-12; 241-1708-12)
    THESE CAUSES came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
    herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there were no errors in
    the judgments.
    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
    judgments of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the
    court below for observance.
    James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-13-00093-CR

Filed Date: 10/23/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015