Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 8, 2007.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-06-00396-CR
NO. 14-06-00397-CR
____________
JOSHUA LUKE PETTIT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 400th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 42,947 & 42,948
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant entered pleas of guilty to the offenses of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and arson. He was convicted, and the court assessed punishment at eighteen months= confinement in a state jail for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and fourteen years= confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. In a single issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to permit appellant forty-eight hours to review the pre-sentence investigation report. We affirm.
Background
At appellant=s plea hearing, the trial court tendered the PSI report to counsel and noted that the results of a psychological examination were included in the report. The court asked if both parties had an opportunity to review the report. The State responded that it had a copy of the report and had reviewed it. Appellant=s counsel asked to review the psychological attachment because that evaluation was not in his copy of the pre-sentence investigation (APSI@) report. Counsel reviewed the PSI report during a short break in the hearing. The trial court then asked appellant if he understood the rights he waived by pleading guilty, and appellant answered in the affirmative. The State introduced State=s Exhibit 3, the PSI report, into evidence. Appellant=s counsel responded, AYour Honor, I would have no objection to State=s Exhibit 3. I have reviewed them in the past.@
Waiver
In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court committed harmful error by failing to permit appellant forty-eight hours to review the PSI report as required by article 42.12 section 9(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 9(d) of article 42.12 provides that, AUnless waived by the defendant, at least 48 hours before sentencing a defendant, the judge shall permit the defendant or his counsel to read the pre-sentence report.@ Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 ' 9(d). Appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to, sua sponte, grant forty-eight hours for appellant and his counsel to review the PSI report. The right to have a PSI conducted and a report prepared is forfeited when a party fails to request a PSI. Summers v. State, 942 S.W.2d 695, 696B97 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.). Appellant claims the legislature in including the words, Aunless waived,@ has elevated the right to review a PSI report forty-eight hours prior to sentencing to a right that must be implemented unless expressly waived. We do not agree that article 42.12 requires an express waiver, but even if it did, appellant clearly waived the forty-eight hour time period in which to review the report. Appellant did not merely remain silent, but instead affirmatively stated that he had no objection to the report, explaining he had Areviewed them in the past.@ Further, appellant requested several typographical corrections to the PSI report, indicating he had ample time to review it. Therefore, appellant waived his right to a review of the PSI report forty-eight hours prior to sentencing. Appellant=s sole issue is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
/s/ Adele Hedges
Chief Justice
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed May 8, 2007.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Seymore.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).