After a hearing on the State's amended application for adjudication of guilt and revocation of probation, the trial court found Compton guilty and sentenced her to sixteen years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Compton brings this appeal, claiming the trial court erred by not administering a substance abuse evaluation before sentencing.
On March 27, 2000, the trial court found Compton guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. However, the court deferred final adjudication and placed Compton on probation for a period of ten years. As a condition to her probation, Compton was required to report to her probation officer once a month, notify her probation officer of any address changes, and abstain from drinking any alcoholic beverages or using any unlawfully controlled substances. Compton failed to comply with the foregoing conditions of her probation, and the court formally adjudicated her guilt. Immediately after adjudicating guilt, the court sentenced Compton to sixteen years imprisonment. On appeal, Compton complains the trial court erred by not complying with the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.12 § 9(h), which provides in pertinent part:
[o]n a determination by the judge that alcohol or drug abuse may have contributed to the commission of the offense, . . . the judge shall direct a supervision officer . . . to conduct an evaluation to determine the appropriateness of, and a course of conduct necessary for, alcohol or drug rehabilitation for a defendant and to report that evaluation to the judge. The evaluation shall be made . . . (2) after conviction and before sentencing, if the judge assesses punishment in the case . . . .
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 9(h) (Vernon Supp. 2003). As evidenced by the language in the statute, the trial court must make a determination that drugs or alcohol contributed to the commission of the offense before an evaluation would be required. Id. On two occasions, Compton made reference to her substance abuse problems. Specifically, Compton testified that if she were reinstated and placed back on probation she would request to be placed in a treatment program. Compton also argued that her problems stemmed from chemical dependency and she should be dealt with on a community level. However, Compton did not request a determination that substance abuse contributed to the underlying offense, and the court did not make a determination on its own initiative.
Notwithstanding the fact that Compton did not meet the prerequisites of article 42.12, this issue has not been preserved for appellate review. Compton failed to make a timely objection to the trial court's alleged error. As a result, Compton waived her right to complain about the absence of an evaluation on appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 2 (to preserve error for review a timely objection must be made stating specific grounds for objection and a ruling must be obtained). Therefore, we may not address this issue and overrule the contention.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: November 5, 2002
Date Decided: December , 2002
Publish/Do Not Publish
0; Justice
Date Submitted: January 11, 2006
Date Decided: January 12, 2006
Do Not Publish