Charles Laron Hearne v. State ( 2010 )

                                                         In The

                                                Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                                                ______________________________

                                                             No. 06-09-00219-CR

                                                ______________________________

                               CHARLES LARON HEARNE, Appellant

                                                                V.

                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                       On Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District Court

                                                             Lamar County, Texas

                                                            Trial Court No. 22950

                                          Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

                                        Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

                                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Charles Laron Hearne has filed a notice of appeal from his convictions of delivery of a controlled substance, delivery of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone, and delivery of a simulated substance.  On our review of the clerk’s record, we noted that the trial court’s certification of right of appeal stated that this was a plea agreement case and that Hearne has no right of appeal. 

            Unless a certification, showing that a defendant has the right of appeal, is in the record, we must dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).  Because the trial court’s certification affirmatively shows Hearne has no right of appeal, and because the record before us does not reflect that the certification is incorrect, see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), we must dismiss the appeal.

            We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice

Date Submitted:              February 1, 2010                                       

Date Decided:              February 2, 2010                                       

Do Not Publish                                                    

is that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to sentence the defendant to a substance abuse felony punishment (SAFP) facility as a condition of community supervision.

            Fatal to his issue on appeal is the fact that Fountain did not complain about the sentence at the time of sentencing and did not file a motion for new trial complaining about the sentence.^[3]  Thus, the error, if any, is not preserved for appellate review.  Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Mullins v. State, 208 S.W.3d 469, 470 n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana  2006, no pet.).^[4]

            For the reasons stated, we affirm.

                                                                        Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                        Chief Justice

Date Submitted:          July 30, 2010

Date Decided:             August 6, 2010

Do Not Publish

---

^[1]Given Fountain’s prior felony conviction, a jury could not have placed him on community supervision.

^[2]Fountain’s appellate attorney, at Fountain’s request, attached to his brief a letter from Fountain complaining of a number of alleged errors.  There is no right to hybrid representation, and we will not address the complaints contained in the letter.  See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

^[3]Fountain filed a motion to set aside the judgment, but did not complain about the sentence in that motion. 

^[4]Even if the issue had been preserved, the trial court did not err.  If a trial court places a defendant on community supervision, the trial court may require as a condition of community supervision “that the defendant serve a term of confinement and treatment in a substance abuse treatment facility” for a term of “not more than one year or less than 90 days.”  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 14(a) (Vernon Supp. 2009).  However, Fountain was not eligible for community supervision.  A defendant is not eligible for community supervision if he or she “is sentenced to a term of imprisonment that exceeds 10 years.”  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 3(e)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2009).  Because Fountain was sentenced to twelve years, Fountain could not be placed on community supervision.  A defendant must be on community supervision to be eligible for SAFP. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 14(b)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2009).