IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
FEBRUARY 12, 2004
______________________________
ADRIAN GUSTAVO LONA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE CRIMINAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;
NO. 86683; HONORABLE CHARLES D. CARVER, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONAdrian Gustavo Lona, appellant, was indicted for aggravated sexual assault. He appeals his conviction and sentence pursuant to a plea of guilty to the lesser included charge of sexual assault. We affirm.
On October 21, 2002 appellant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of sexual assault. The trial court accepted appellant's plea without the benefit of a plea agreement with the State. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on December 2, 2002, received evidence, and sentenced appellant to 20 years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division.
Appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders (1) brief. In support of his motion to withdraw, he certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and applicable law, has found no reversible errors, fundamental or otherwise, upon which to base a meritorious appeal, and has concluded the appeal is frivolous. Appellant's counsel attached to his brief a letter, sent to appellant with a copy of counsel's brief and a copy of the reporter's record, informing appellant of his right to obtain and review the record and to raise any point or matter he wishes this court to review. Appellant's counsel also filed a motion requesting appellant be given an extension to allow sufficient time for him to obtain and review the record and file a pro se brief with the court. The motion was granted and this court notified appellant, but he has not filed a response.
The written plea admonishments signed by appellant include the statement that his trial counsel provided effective and competent legal representation. Appellant told the trial court when he entered his plea that he was satisfied with his counsel's representation of him. The record also includes a form document signed by appellant following sentencing that includes a general allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The brief filed by appellant's appellate counsel includes a discussion of his examination of the record for any evidence of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, pursuant to the requirements of Strickland v. Washington. (2) Counsel reports that the record is devoid of evidence that would meet either of the two prongs of the Strickland test. Appellant's counsel also provides an analysis of the procedural facts of the case and the applicable law, with references to the record and citations to legal authority relied upon in making his determination that the appeal is without merit. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).
Appellate counsel notes that the admonishment given appellant by the trial court regarding his right to appeal was incorrect in that it imposed terms more restrictive than the law requires. The court admonished appellant as if he were a person entering a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. Appellant was admonished that he would have to obtain consent from the trial court to appeal his plea of guilty and to invoke the jurisdiction of this court he would have to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3) in his notice of appeal. (3) Appellant, however, was not entering a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. Even though appellant was incorrectly advised regarding his right to appeal, he timely filed a notice of appeal sufficient to perfect his appeal. No issue is raised by the improper admonishment.
This court has independently reviewed the record and legal authority, including that cited by counsel in his brief. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed 2d 300 (1988). The record indicates that appellant was timely indicted and provided representation by legal counsel, signed admissions of guilt and written admonishments, and was orally examined and admonished by the trial judge before the guilty plea was accepted. The sentence imposed by the court is within the range of punishment provided for by statute. We find no arguable grounds for appeal.
Counsel's Motion to Withdraw is therefore granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed 2d 493, 498 (1967).
2. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
3. Appellant's sentencing hearing was held on December 2, 2002. Amendments to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2, effective January 1, 2003, replaced subdivision 25.2(b)(3) with current subdivision 25.2 (a)(2).
t-size: 10pt"> got to have it this way. It's an imposition on every one of you. There's not
a one of you here that doesn't have something they would rather do today
. . . . If you think about it a little bit, you realize there's nothing more important
for you to do today as a citizen of this - - of this country. You're part of
the government of this country today. Everybody agree with that?
With that said, we turn to the arguments of appellant.
Argument
Preservation of Complaint
Initially, we note that appellant failed to object to any of the comments about which she now complains. That is fatal on appeal given the dictates of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1. The latter obligates one to object at trial, state specific grounds for the objection, and secure a ruling on the objection as a condition precedent to the assertion of the complaint on appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1). And, that this requirement generally applies to error arising from the trial court's own conduct is clear. See Brewer v. State, 572 S.W.2d 719, 721 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (stating that where no objection is made, remarks and conduct of the court may not be subsequently challenged unless they are fundamentally erroneous); Williams v. State, 834 S.W.2d 502, 505 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth, pet. ref'd) (stating that an appellant must object to the trial court's comment to preserve error); Moore v. State, 907 S.W.2d 918, 923 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd) (stating that errors involving the trial court's comment on the weight of the evidence must be asserted at trial to preserve them for appeal). Recognizing this, appellant attempts to squeeze her circumstance into the window opened in Brewer. That is, she contends that she was relieved from having to comply with Rule 33.1 because the supposed misconduct constituted fundamental error. Furthermore, she relies on the case of Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) to support her supposition. We find Blue inapposite.
In Blue, the trial court informed the jury that the defendant had received a plea offer and was contemplating whether to accept it and plead guilty. So too did the trial court state that it would "prefer" that the defendant plead guilty. Though appellant objected to neither comment at trial, he complained of them on appeal. The intermediate court concluded that because no contemporaneous objection was uttered, the error was waived. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision, holding that the error was fundamental and outside the scope of Rule 33.1. In so holding, the court did not state that each instance of misconduct by the trial judge constituted fundamental error. Nor did it overrule, in any respect, its prior holding in Brewer. Rather, four of those voting to reverse deemed the comments to taint the presumption of innocence while the fifth and sixth judges believed that they denied the accused his right to an impartial judge or an impartial tribunal, respectively. Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 889 n.72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). And, because they implicated those rights, they were held to be fundamental and subject to assertion for the first time on appeal.
So, to say the least, the scope of Blue is far from certain. Nevertheless, we cannot reasonably interpret it as dispensing with the need to comply with Rule 33.1, save in those instances wherein the judge's conduct rises to the level of impugning the presumption of innocence, denying an accused the basic right to an impartial jurist or tribunal, or the like. Furthermore, neither of the comments at bar rise to that level, assuming arguendo that they were even improper.
As for that involving the truthfulness of the police, the court was not telling the jury that the police would be truthful, as appellant suggested. It is clear from the entire context of the utterances that the jurist attempted to dissuade the venire from believing the police or any other official simply because they were the police or a government official. And, in doing so, it suggested that the police themselves would not want the jurors to deem them credible merely because they were the police; instead, they (the police) would want to be believed since they (in their collective minds) believed they would be reciting the truth. That is a far cry from conduct evincing 1) a defendant's belief in his own guilt (i.e. informing jurors that the defendant was seriously contemplating a plea offer) or 2) the court's bias against the defendant (i.e. revealing his belief that the defendant should plead guilty).
Simply put, the trial court at bar sought to instruct the jury to have an open, unbiased mind when hearing the evidence. In Blue, the trial judge did something quite different. Therefore, the complaint before us falls outside the parameters of Blue but within those established by Brewer, and because appellant did not raise it below, it was waived. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1).
Nor do the comments about the potential jurors being part of the government fall within Blue. Again, upon viewing them in context, the trial court was endeavoring to stress upon the jury the importance of their role in our judicial system or system of government. It did not inform the venire that as part of the government, it was acting on behalf of the prosecution, as appellant insinuates. (2) Thus, the comments did not taint the presumption of innocence or effectively deprive appellant of an unbiased judge or tribunal. And, to the extent they did not, appellant was obligated to object below to preserve them for appeal. Brewer v. State, supra.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Publish.
1. Appellant likens the comments to fundamental structural error to avoid the argument that her
objections were waived pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1. Simply put, she did not object
to them when uttered below.
2.