Benito Silverio v. State, 05-14-01412-CR

Appellant Benito Silverio pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation; State recommended 5–30 years in exchange for his assistance in a co-defendant’s trial; trial court assessed 25 years.
Silverio had testified at co-defendant Jose Alfaro’s trial before the same judge who later presided over Silverio’s plea and sentencing.
At the plea/punishment hearing the judge questioned Silverio about his Alfaro testimony, criminal history, and post-release plans, and made admonitory moral comments (e.g., urging honesty, criticizing his conduct that night).
Silverio did not object at trial to the judge’s questions or comments but later argued on appeal that the judge abandoned neutrality and effectively cross‑examined him, violating due process.
The court reviewed whether the conduct amounted to fundamental (structural) error excusing the lack of contemporaneous objection and whether the record showed impermissible judicial bias.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judge’s questioning/comments at plea/punishment hearing violated due process by abandoning neutrality	Judge’s comments and questioning show bias/advocacy and were structural error so no trial objection was required (preserve on appeal)	No contemporaneous objection was made; remarks did not show deep‑seated antagonism or loss of neutrality and thus do not constitute fundamental error	Affirmed: appellant failed to preserve complaint; record does not show unique circumstances or judicial partiality warranting review without objection

Unkart v. State, 400 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (preservation rule and limits on appellate review of unpreserved complaints)
Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (classification of rights: absolute, system‑implemented, and request‑based)
Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (overruling aspects of Marin on other grounds referenced for context)
Hull v. State, 67 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (constitutional claims may be waived by failure to object)
Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (same principle regarding waiver)
Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (court may resolve issue on record lack of partiality without deciding preservation question)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (due process requires neutral, detached decisionmaker)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (judicial remarks warrant recusal only if they display deep‑seated favoritism or antagonism)
Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (plurality decision granting relief for judicial comments that vitiated presumption of innocence; treated as nonprecedential)
Sanchez v. State, 120 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (discussing absolute/systemic rights not subject to preservation)
Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial judge should act as neutral arbiter)