In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-11-00041-CR
______________________________
TAKISHA DESHAWN ROLFE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 34257-B
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Takisha Deshawn Rolfe appeals her conviction by the trial court for forgery—a state-jail
felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.21 (West 2011). Rolfe entered an open plea1 of guilty
to the trial court and signed a stipulation of evidence. In the stipulation, Rolfe admitted she
passed three forged checks. At the plea hearing, the trial court accepted the plea of guilty and
found Rolfe guilty, but did not pronounce Rolfe’s sentence. At a later hearing, the trial court
imposed a sentence of nine months’ confinement. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has
granted Rolfe an out-of time appeal. See Ex parte Rolfe, No. AP-76,474, 2011 Tex. Crim. App.
Unpub. LEXIS 10 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2011) (per curiam) (not designated for publication).
Rolfe’s sole issue on appeal is that the trial court failed to remain neutral and became
adversarial. Rolfe argues the nature of the questioning by the trial court ―essentially accused the
Appellant of lying in regard to her having a sister who worked at Kohl’s and her previous criminal
conspiracy with the sister to commit a crime similar to the case at bar.‖ According to Rolfe, the
trial court, even in the face of overwhelming evidence Rolfe did not have a sister, indicated it had
questions about the credibility of Rolfe. Rolfe argues the trial court’s decision to sentence Rolfe
to confinement instead of community supervision demonstrates the trial court failed to remain
neutral.2
1
There was not any negotiated sentence agreement.
2
We note that Rolfe argues the trial court should have placed Rolfe on community supervision. To the extent this
argument can be construed as a failure to consider the entire range of punishment, the argument is not preserved for
2
Due process requires a neutral and detached judicial officer. See Brumit v. State, 206
S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Absent a clear showing to the contrary, we presume
that the trial court was neutral and impartial. Id.; Brown v. State, 334 S.W.3d 789, 806 (Tex.
App.—Tyler 2010, pet. ref’d).
At the plea hearing, Rolfe testified she was twenty-eight years old and had never been
convicted of a felony. Rolfe testified she had only been arrested once, and the charges had been
dropped.3 Rolfe testified she was a high school graduate, had attended college for nine months,
and was a single parent of two children.
On cross-examination, the State asked Rolfe when was the last time she smoked marihuana
and Rolfe responded, ―I would say probably Friday.‖ Rolfe testified she did not regularly smoke
marihuana, but admitted she had tried marihuana before. During the plea hearing, the following
exchanges between Rolfe and the trial court occurred:
THE COURT: . . . . I’ve got a question or two, if y’all don’t mind. Is the
use of marihuana illegal and a violation of the laws of the State of Texas?
[Rolfe]: Yes.
our review. A trial court denies due process if it refuses to consider the entire range of punishment for an offense or
refuses to consider the evidence and imposes a predetermined punishment. Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2002). A timely objection is required to preserve such a complaint for review. Teixeira v. State, 89
S.W.3d 190, 192 (Tex. App.––Texarkana 2002, pet. ref’d); Washington v. State, 71 S.W.3d 498, 499 (Tex.
App.––Tyler 2002, no pet.); Cole v. State, 757 S.W.2d 864, 867 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1988, pet. ref’d). Because
Rolfe failed to object, any complaint was forfeited.
3
Rolfe testified she had been arrested in Tennessee for possession of stolen property, but the charges had been
dropped.
3
THE COURT: You’re telling me that with this case pending before this
court, after you have appeared before me, waived the right to a trial by jury, entered
a plea of guilty to the indictment, that you went out and violated the laws of this
state?
[Rolfe]: Yes.
THE COURT: And then you’re asking me to show you mercy by granting
you probation?
....
THE COURT: And did you tell Ms. Choice that you knew how to do it
because you had done the same thing before with your sister who was working at
Kohl’s Department Store?
[Rolfe]: No, I don’t have a sister.
THE COURT: Well, I guess the police officer must not have got it right.
Let’s go to page 5 of the police offense report, State’s Exhibit 2. I’m looking at the
second full paragraph. ―Ms. Choice said‖ -- this is the interview, this is the police
offense report filled out by the Detective Greg Stewart. And it is dated December
-- or printed December the 7th, 2005. ―Ms. Choice said when she got home that
night, Phillip and Keisha‖ -- that’s you, Keisha?
[Rolfe]: Yes.
THE COURT: ―were outside. Keisha had a checkbook that she had taken
from the purse at Mervyn’s. Keisha and Phillip said they had seen some things in
Mervyn’s they wanted. They asked Ms. Choice to let them use the checks to make
purchases. Keisha said she knew how to do it because she had done the same thing
before with her sister who was working at Kohl’s Department Store. Ms. Choice
said that her mother told her to go ahead and let Phillip and Keisha use the checks.‖
That wrong?
[Rolfe]: Yes.
THE COURT: Police officer just made that up?
4
[Rolfe]: I didn’t speak to him. But that’s her story.
....
THE COURT: . . . . Let me tell you something, you’re asking this Court
for mercy, and if I get the idea that you’re not telling me the truth, I’m going to tell
you what’s getting ready to happen to you, I’m going to send you to the
penitentiary. Do you understand me?
On redirect, Rolfe testified she had never talked with the investigating police officer. Rolfe’s
mother testified that Rolfe did not have a sister. At the conclusion of the plea hearing, the trial
court stated:
I’m not comfortable with this case based on how that report reads. I’m certainly
not comfortable when someone’s standing before -- sits here and tells me they
violated the law after having come before this Court and entered a plea of guilty and
waived the right to trial by jury.
I’m going to take this one under advisement for some period. I don’t know
how long. I really wish we had that co-defendant as I read her statement. Her,
the co-defendant, Choice, she flat puts it on this defendant without any hesitation.
I’m just not -- I’m not comfortable that I’ve gotten the truth today. So it’s
under advisement. Let you know when I make the decision coming back here.
At the later sentencing hearing, the State made the following statement:
The State feels that the witnesses were being honest. I understand there was a
slight discrepancy in the police report, I think it’s the way it was read that threw
everybody off. I think she’s a candidate for probation, Judge, I don’t do that very
often, but I think it might be possible in this case.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has noted that a trial judge may question a witness to
―elicit information or to clarify issues.‖ Morrison v. State, 845 S.W.2d 882, 903 (Tex. Crim. App.
1992); see Navarro v. State, 477 S.W.2d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (fact a trial judge questions
5
witness to clarify witness’ testimony does not indicate bias). The record neither shows that the
trial court imposed a ―predetermined‖ punishment, see Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2006), nor does it show that the trial court did not consider the possibility of
community supervision. The record shows that the trial court merely believed community
supervision was not appropriate for this particular defendant’s situation.
Although the trial court expressed doubts as to whether Rolfe was being truthful at the
earlier hearing, the trial court did not express any doubts as to Rolfe’s truthfulness after the State
stated it believed the witnesses were truthful. The trial court provided the following reason for its
sentencing decision:
You chose during the pendency of the sentencing from the time you pled
guilty up to between that date and August 14th, to go out and violate the law again
by the use of marijuana.
That is not the type of person this Court considers worthy of the grant of
mercy, and I refuse to do it, and have consistently said that is the position I believe
in strongly. I’m not going to change for this particular case. I look at each one of
them.
But I’m not going to grant you probation. I’m going to send you where
you sent yourself the day you chose -- the day you chose to use marijuana while
awaiting sentencing. You pronounced the sentence of state jail confinement
against yourself, and I assess your punishment at nine calendar months’
confinement . . . .
The trial court’s stated reason for not placing Rolfe on community supervision was her admitted
drug use. While we may not have reached the same decision as the trial court, the decision was
within the trial court’s discretion, and Rolfe has failed to make a clear showing the trial court failed
to remain neutral.
6
For the reasons stated, we overrule Rolfe’s sole issue and affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: August 1, 2011
Date Decided: August 3, 2011
Do Not Publish
7