Grado, Michael Anthony, 445 S.W.3d 736

Grado pleaded guilty to possession of 400 grams or more of amphetamine (Penalty Group 2).
The court sentenced him to ten years’ confinement, suspended, with 10 years’ probation and a $10,000 fine.
At revocation, both sides advised the court that the minimum punishment was ten years based on the quantity, and the judge stated the minimum and maximum as ten years.
Grado’s offense is controlled by Health and Safety Code § 481.116(a) for Penalty Group 2; the actual applicable range is not ten years but lifetime confinement or up to 99 years or as few as 5 years.
The court of appeals held Grado’s right to be sentenced after considering the full range of punishment was a Marin category-two right and not procedurally defaulted; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review on that point.
The record showed the sentence fell within the statutory range for Penalty Group 2, despite the judge’s erroneous belief about the minimum.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the right to be sentenced after considering the full range of punishment waivable?	Grado argues Marin category-two right cannot be forfeited.	State contends the right is forfeitable or waived.	The right is a Marin category-two right; not procedurally defaulted absent an effective waiver.
Whether the sentencing error was forfeited or must be reviewed on the merits.	Grado contends no contemporaneous objection was required due to Marin category-two.	State argues traditional preservation applies; error may be forfeited.	Merits review proper; right not extinguished by mere inaction.
Whether the judge’s mistaken belief about the minimum range satisfies due process concerns.	Grado asserts arbitrary calculation undermines fair sentencing.	State argues error was based on mistaken, not biased, judgment; not due process denial.	Mistaken belief about range does not equal bias; but due process requires considering full range; affirmed on Marin-category analysis.

Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (establishes Marin category-right framework for preservation)
Aldrich v. State, 104 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (sentencing misperception not automatically appealable; distinctions with Marin)
Hull v. State, 158 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (probation conditions and preservation; limited applicability to Grado)
Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (contractual nature of probation; waiver principles)
Gutierrez v. State, 380 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (Speth guidance on probation conditions and Marin)
Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (jurisprudence on preservation and sentencing)
Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (example of preservation limits in sentencing)