Norman Lee Hill, Jr. v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00081-CR
NORMAN LEE HILL, JR., APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 297th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1317674D, Honorable Everett Young, Presiding
November 13, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, Norman Lee Hill, Jr., entered a plea of guilty, without benefit of a plea
bargain, to the indicted offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. 1 After
receiving a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI), the trial court assessed punishment
at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(ID-TDCJ) for 30 years. Appellant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in not
granting his motion for new trial. We affirm.
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011).
Factual and Procedural Background
Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery with a deadly
weapon. The victim of the robbery was a 13-year-old juvenile, who was robbed at
gunpoint for his tennis shoes, cell phone, and approximately $20 cash.
Appellant entered his plea of guilty to the offense, and the trial court ordered a
PSI. After the PSI and one supplement were completed, the trial court convened a
hearing on the issue of punishment. The State offered the PSI and the supplement into
evidence and rested. Appellant presented his mother’s and his own testimony. At the
conclusion of the evidence, the trial court offered the opportunity to trial counsel to make
any summation they felt necessary. Appellant’s trial counsel then made his argument to
the trial court. During the State’s closing argument, counsel made the following
statements: “There’s not much I can say to put a good spin on the life of Norman Hill so
far, Judge. It is disgusting the way this guy has lived. And he’s got no one to blame but
himself. It is absolutely not his mother or his family’s fault.” At the time the statements
were made, there was no objection lodged by trial counsel. Thereafter, the trial court
assessed appellant’s sentence at confinement in the ID-TDCJ for a period of 30 years.
Subsequently, appellant’s counsel filed a motion for new trial. The motion for
new trial raised two issues: (1) the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, and
(2) the court’s sentence was excessive and constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Even though represented by counsel, appellant filed a pro se motion for leave to file a
motion for new trial that argued that he had been prejudiced by the comments made by
the State’s attorney during closing arguments. The trial court never granted permission
2
to file the pro se motion for new trial. The trial court entered no orders referring to either
of the post-trial motions, and, accordingly, they were deemed to be overruled by law.
Appellant now appeals contending that the trial judge committed reversible error
by not hearing and granting his motion for new trial. For the reasons hereinafter stated,
we disagree and will affirm.
Standard of Review
An appellate court reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial under an
abuse of discretion standard.2 See Colyer v. State, 428 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014). We do not substitute our judgment for the trial court’s; rather, we simply
decide whether the trial court’s decision was arbitrary or unreasonable. See id.
Analysis
It is axiomatic that to obtain relief from an appellate court, the issue brought to
the appellate court must have been preserved for appellate purposes. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 33.1(a)(1). The preservation requirement applies to appellate issues attacking the
State’s closing argument. See Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 667 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2004) (en banc) (holding that failure to object to jury argument forfeits the right to
complain on appeal).
Here, the record clearly demonstrates that there was no objection to the State’s
argument about which appellant now complains. Accordingly, appellant has waived this
argument for appellate purposes. See id.
2
All of appellant’s motions for new trial were overruled by operation of law. TEX. R. APP. P.
21.8(c).
3
Even if we were to assume, arguendo, that appellant’s complaint was properly
before this Court, the record does not support his proposition that his rights were
harmed. The record clearly demonstrates that, when passing sentencing, the trial court
delineated a number of factors that led to the sentence imposed. Specifically, the trial
court identified the information presented in the PSI and appellant’s judicial confession
as factors it considered. A review of the PSI shows appellant’s initial denial of
culpability, which then morphed into a minimization of his responsibility for the
aggravated robbery at issue. Our review of the record leads to the conclusion that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s motion for new trial. See
Colyer, 428 S.W.3d at 122. Accordingly, appellant’s issue is overruled.
Conclusion
Having overruled appellant’s single issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
4