|
|
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-06-403-CR
WILLIAM MARSHALL STOREY APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. THREE OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
------------
This is an appeal from a revocation of community supervision. In a single point, Appellant William Storey argues that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a separate punishment hearing after adjudicating Storey=s guilt. Because the record clearly shows that a separate punishment hearing was held, we will affirm.
In his sole point, Storey complains that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a separate punishment hearing after adjudicating Storey=s guilt.[2] When a trial court finds that an accused has committed a violation as alleged by the State and adjudicates a previously deferred finding of guilt, the court must bifurcate the accused=s trial into an adjudication of guilt phase and a punishment phase. Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Thus, the defendant is entitled to a punishment hearing after the adjudication of guilt, and the trial court must allow the accused to present evidence to mitigate punishment. Id.; see Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
In this case, the record reflects that the trial court properly bifurcated Storey=s trial. On August 16 and 24, 2006, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State=s motion to revoke Storey=s community supervision. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Storey guilty. At that point, the following exchange occurred:
THE COURT: I will hereby assess your sentence in this case B
[STOREY=S ATTORNEY]: Judge, I hate to interrupt B
THE COURT: Yes, you do.
[STOREY=S ATTORNEY]: B but I feel I must.
THE COURT: You want to have a bifurcated hearing?
[STOREY=S ATTORNEY]: I would like to have a bifurcated hearing . . . .
THE COURT: Okay. That=s fine.
The trial court then reset the case for a later sentencing hearing.
Three months later, on November 13, 2006, the trial court held the sentencing hearing. At the hearing, Storey offered witness testimony in mitigation of punishment and a presentencing investigation report. Storey called his mother, who testified about her son=s children and how much they cared for him. Storey then rested. After the State waived opening, Storey=s attorney made a lengthy closing statement, followed by a brief statement from the State. The trial court then sentenced Storey to twenty months in state jail.
Despite having had a separate punishment hearing, clearly delineated by the passage of three months after the adjudication of guilt, in which he offered a presentence investigation report, presented a witness, and gave closing statements, Storey claims on appeal that the trial court denied him the opportunity to present evidence on his behalf in mitigation of punishment.[3]
Because the trial court afforded Storey the opportunity to present evidence in mitigation of punishment at a sentencing hearing conducted after and separate from the adjudication hearing, we hold that the trial court did not err. We overrule Storey=s sole point and, accordingly, affirm the trial court=s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL F: WALKER, LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: October 4, 2007
[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
[2]We have jurisdiction to evaluate the merits of Storey=s appeal under Vidaurri v. State, which held that when an appellant does not challenge his conviction but rather challenges the sentencing process, a general notice of appeal will confer jurisdiction on the appellate court. 49 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Smith v. State, 52 S.W.3d 475, 476 (Tex. App.CCorpus Christi 2001, pet. ref=d). Because Storey is challenging the sentencing process, we reach the merits of his claim.
[3]We note that Storey relies on an exchange between the trial court and Storey=s attorney that is not in any part of the record.