Calvin Jamal Lakes v. State

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00111-CR
CALVIN JAMAL LAKES APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1287004W
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
Appellant Calvin Jamal Lakes appeals from his five-year sentence imposed
after his deferred adjudication community supervision was revoked and he was
adjudged guilty of burglary of a habitation. Because Lakes forfeited any complaint
regarding his sentence, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
On July 6, 2012, Lakes pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. The trial
court under a plea-bargain agreement deferred adjudicating Lakes’s guilt and placed
him on community supervision for five years. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
42.12, § 5(a) (West Supp. 2014). Several conditions were placed on Lakes’s
community supervision two of which were payment of certain fees, fines, and costs
and reporting to his assigned community-supervision officer monthly. See id. art.
42.12, § 11. On May 31, 2013, the State filed a petition to proceed to adjudication
because Lakes repeatedly failed to pay his supervision fees and failed to regularly
report to his community-supervision officer. On June 26, 2013, the trial court
modified Lakes’s community supervision, requiring Lakes to submit to the
supervision of the supervision-with-immediate-enforcement court (SWIFT court)
because he was “headed for probation revocation.” The trial court then granted the
State’s motion to dismiss the petition based on the amended terms.
The SWIFT court periodically ordered Lakes to serve brief periods of time—
ranging from two to thirty days—in the Tarrant County Jail. On January 24, 2014,
the SWIFT court discharged Lakes “for program violations” and returned his
supervision to the trial court. The trial court issued a warrant for Lakes’s arrest for
violating the terms of his community supervision by using drugs and for failing to
appear in court. On February 6, 2014, the State filed a second petition to proceed to
adjudication, alleging that Lakes failed to identify himself to a peace officer
attempting to serve an arrest warrant and that Lakes had been discharged from the
SWIFT court in violation of the terms of his community supervision. Lakes pleaded
true to both violation allegations without the benefit of a plea-bargain agreement.
The trial court adjudged Lakes guilty of burglary of a habitation, revoked his
community supervision, and sentenced him to five years’ confinement. See id. art.
42.12, § 5(b).
2
Lakes now argues on appeal that his sentence was disproportionate to the
severity of the violations given his addiction issues and was cruel and unusual.
Lakes concedes that the sentence given by the trial court was within the range of
possible punishment. Lakes did not object to the trial court’s imposition of sentence
at the time it was imposed 2 or file a motion for new trial arguing that his sentence
was disproportionate and unconstitutional. Thus, he has forfeited any error arising
from his sentence. 3 See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Hicks v. State, 415 SW.3d
587, 588 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no pet.). We overrule Lakes’s sole point and
affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a).
/s/ Lee Gabriel
LEE GABRIEL
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; WALKER and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: November 20, 2014
2
Lakes did not request that the court reporter make a record of the revocation
hearing. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 52.046 (West 2013); Tex. R. App. P. 13.1(a).
3
Even if properly preserved, this argument would have no merit because the
sentence was within the range of applicable punishments and was not grossly
disproportionate to the gravity of the initial offense to which Lakes pleaded guilty—
burglary of a habitation. See, e.g., Lawrence v. State, 420 S.W.3d 329, 333 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref’d).
3