Daniel DeSantiago-Caraza v. State, 01-14-00506-CR

Appellant Daniel DeSantiago-Carraza pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and reserved punishment to the trial court after a presentence investigation; the court later sentenced him to 60 years’ imprisonment.
Facts at punishment hearing: a passenger in an F-150 pointed a gun and fired at several victims; Appellant was the driver and was alleged to have encouraged the passenger.
Appellant and witnesses testified he was impaired by Xanax, alcohol, and marijuana that night, did not remember events, and acted as a party rather than the shooter.
Mitigation evidence presented: history of childhood abuse, mental-health diagnoses (antisocial personality disorder, bipolar disorder, intermittent explosive disorder), prior suicide attempt, recent death of a close friend, remorse, support from family, and plans for employment and care of two young daughters.
At the hearing the trial judge expressed unwillingness to hear extended testimony and indicated he believed the plea papers were sufficient; after hearing mitigating testimony the court imposed the maximum sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court violated due process by refusing to consider the full range of punishment and mitigating evidence before imposing sentence	DeSantiago-Carraza: the court indicated it would not hear full testimony, pre-determined punishment, and ignored mitigating evidence (mental illness, intoxication, abusive childhood, recent bereavement, lack of felony record, remorse, family ties)	State: urged development of record to show appellant was more than a mere party and sought up to 50 years; prosecutor argued burden remained on State to prove relevant aggravating participation	Appellant argues the court’s statements and conduct show a predetermined sentence and refusal to consider mitigation, requiring reversal and new punishment hearing (appellate briefing seeks relief)

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due process requires a neutral, detached hearing body)
McClenan v. State, 661 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (denial of due process when court refuses to consider full punishment range or evidence and imposes predetermined punishment)
Jefferson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1991) (same principle regarding consideration of evidence at punishment)
Howard v. State, 830 S.W.2d 785 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1992) (trial court must consider mitigating evidence; refusal can violate due process)
Cole v. State, 757 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1988) (court’s arbitrary refusal to consider punishment range can constitute due-process violation)