Dustin Bennett Sandlin v. State, 06-16-00075-CR

In April 2015 Sandlin pled guilty to indecency with a child by sexual contact; the trial court suspended a 10-year prison sentence and placed him on ten years’ community supervision.
The State later filed an amended motion to revoke supervision alleging ten violations; at the hearing Sandlin admitted three drug-use violations and disputed the others.
After the true/not-true phase, the punishment phase included testimony from the victim (then 13) and her grandfather describing sexual contact and lasting psychological harm.
The trial court revoked supervision and imposed the previously suspended 10-year sentence; the judge made a post-sentencing remark expressing regret that he was limited to ten years and criticizing the offense’s impact.
Sandlin appealed, arguing those remarks showed the judge refused to consider the full range of punishment and mitigating evidence, denying due process.
The court reviewed waiver/procedural-default doctrines, considered the merits, and concluded the record did not show the judge arbitrarily refused to consider punishment range or mitigation; the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge refused to consider the full range of punishment and mitigating evidence, denying due process	Sandlin: the court’s sentencing soliloquy shows a predetermined sentence and ignored mitigation	State: the court heard and referenced evidence (partial compliance, victim impact) and did not predetermine sentence	Court: No due process violation; remarks followed consideration of evidence; affirmed
Whether the complaint was forfeited or may be considered despite no timely objection	Sandlin: issue is fundamental error and not waived	State: procedural-default principles apply, but under Grado the right to have judge consider full range is a Marin category-two right and not waived absent effective waiver	Court: No effective waiver found; considered merits and rejected claim

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (due process requires neutral judge consider punishment and mitigation)
Teixeira v. State, 89 S.W.3d 190 (Tex. App.—Texarkana) (court may deny due process if it arbitrarily refuses to consider full punishment range)
Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217 (discusses predetermination of sentence and consideration of evidence)
Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (addresses appellate review of trial-court comments and preservation)
Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (framework for rights that are absolute, require implementation unless waived, or require request)
Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736 (right to sentencing judge who considers full range is Marin category-two; not forfeited absent effective waiver)