Charles Blake Defore v. State
12-15-00074-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 7, 2015Background
- Appellant Charles Blake DeFore pleaded guilty in Feb 2013 to manufacture/delivery (PG 1, 4–200 grams); the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on 10 years community supervision.
- In Jan 2015 the State filed a Motion to Proceed with Adjudication of Guilt and Sentence; a consolidated adjudication hearing for causes 31,070 and 31,077 was held Feb 13, 2015.
- At the hearing DeFore pled “not true” to the allegations in both motions; the State presented three witnesses and the court heard closing arguments.
- The reporter’s record shows the court said it found the allegations in both motions to be true and adjudicated guilt in companion cause 31,077, but the record does not contain an explicit oral pronouncement adjudicating guilt in cause 31,070.
- Despite the alleged lack of an oral adjudication in 31,070, the court imposed a 30‑year sentence in that cause.
- Appellant’s principal contention: because the court did not orally adjudicate guilt in cause 31,070 before sentencing, the judgment for that cause is void/not final and the appellate court lacks jurisdiction; appellant asks the court to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court adjudicated guilt in cause 31,070 before sentencing | Appellant (DeFore) argues the reporter’s record shows no express oral pronouncement of adjudication in 31,070, so no valid adjudication occurred | State argues the judgment recitals and the court’s statements (finding allegations true) suffice to show adjudication (presumption of regularity) | Not decided in this brief; appellant urges that appellate court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because adjudication was not orally pronounced in 31,070 |
| Whether a written judgment reciting adjudication overcomes omission of oral pronouncement | Appellant: recitals cannot overcome an affirmative record showing error; oral pronouncement required | State: formal judgment and presumption of regularity bind absent proof of falsity | Appellant asserts record affirmatively shows error; outcome not decided here |
| Whether sentencing without a prior adjudication renders the judgment nonfinal and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction | Appellant: sentencing without adjudication produces a nonfinal/void judgment and appellate lack of jurisdiction | State: (implicit) sentencing followed standard procedure or judgment should be treated as final due to recitals | Appellant requests dismissal; no appellate ruling in the brief |
| Whether companion cause adjudications affect 31,070’s validity | Appellant: court adjudicated guilt in companion cause (31,077) but that does not cure failure to adjudicate in 31,070 | State: (implicit) consolidated hearing and statements about both causes support adjudication across causes | Not decided in this brief; appellant contends companion adjudication does not validate 31,070 |
Key Cases Cited
- Breazeale v. State, 683 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (recitals in judgment create a presumption of regularity but may be overcome by record showing error)
- Villela v. State, 564 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (in absence of express oral pronouncement, appellate court may imply a finding of guilt only under limited circumstances)
- Warren v. State, 784 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989) (discusses appellate jurisdiction where adjudication and sentencing procedures are contested)