Andrew Zakeekenneth Fleming v. the State of Texas
05-20-00257-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 2, 2021Background
- Appellant Andrew Zakeekenneth Fleming pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery after he and others accosted victims in an apartment parking lot; Fleming was armed with a 9mm firearm and (per his written judicial confession) struck the complainant with the firearm.
- Fleming says he only watched the door while accomplices took televisions.
- He was indicted May 9, 2019; the trial court made an affirmative deadly-weapon finding and assessed punishment at 15 years’ imprisonment (within the 5–99 year range for a first‑degree felony).
- The trial-court judgment assessed fees totaling $290 and an additional $25 installment (time payment) fee.
- On appeal Fleming raised three issues: (1) the time payment fee is unconstitutional/premature, (2) the 15‑year sentence is an abuse of discretion and fails to meet penal‑code objectives, and (3) the judgment should be reformed to reflect the correct prosecuting attorneys.
- The Court of Appeals struck the time payment fee, rejected Fleming’s sentencing challenge, and reformed the judgment to show the correct State attorneys; as modified, the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Fleming's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time-payment (installment) fee validity | The $25 time-payment fee is unconstitutional/premature when assessed at judgment and must be struck | Fee was assessed in the judgment (no brief filed by State) | Fee was prematurely assessed on the judgment date and is struck in its entirety (followed Dulin) |
| Sentence violates Penal Code objectives / abuse of discretion | 15-year term for a 19‑year‑old with substance abuse who cooperated fails rehabilitation and differential treatment objectives; requested probation shows objection to any prison term | Sentence is within statutory range; no contemporaneous trial‑court objection preserved the complaint | Issue not preserved for review; alternatively, no abuse of discretion—sentence within statutory range, so affirmed |
| Reformation of judgment to correct State prosecutors | Judgment should list Shannon Barber and Blerta Sandman as State’s attorneys | Record reflects the correct attorneys | Court reformed judgment to reflect Shannon Barber and Blerta Sandman representing the State |
Key Cases Cited
- Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (time‑payment fee assessed at judgment is premature and must be struck on appeal)
- Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (appellate review of sentence is for abuse of discretion)
- Carpenter v. State, 783 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989) (punishment within statutory range generally will not be disturbed for failing to meet Penal Code objectives)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate courts may reform judgments to make the record speak the truth)
- Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (preservation-of-error requirements for appellate review of trial rulings)