Hayes v. State, 516 S.W.3d 649

In November 2013 Emanuel Hayes and co-defendant Darion Amos participated in a home invasion of 78‑year‑old Richard Chandler that left Chandler unconscious and severely injured; stolen items were found on Hayes when he was later arrested. Both pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and were set for joint PSI/punishment proceedings.
On October 6, 2015 the court held a joint PSI hearing; both defendants and counsel were present, the PSI report (covering both defendants) was admitted, and victim witnesses testified. Amos’s mother testified for Amos that he should avoid Hayes.
The hearing was continued; on October 7 the court called only Amos’s case and heard Amos’s testimony about the offense and punishment while Hayes was not brought from jail; Hayes’s counsel was in court but did not object or cross‑examine on that day.
On October 9 the court resumed and called Hayes’s case; Hayes testified and presented mitigation. The court found both guilty and later, on October 30, sentenced both to 16 years.
Hayes appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing Amos to testify on October 7 in Hayes’s absence, violating Hayes’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses; the State argued Hayes waived the complaint because counsel did not object.

Issue	Hayes' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the Oct. 7 PSI hearing was part of Hayes's trial	Oct. 7 was part of the joint trial and thus part of Hayes's trial rights	It was part of Amos's hearing only	Court: Oct. 7 was part of the joint trial; Hayes may complain about absence
Whether Hayes waived the right to be present by counsel's failure to object	Right to be present is a Marin category‑two right that the court must implement absent an express waiver; counsel's inaction doesn't waive it	Defense counsel's presence meant no objection was necessary; issue forfeited	Court: Right to be present is a category‑two right; trial court had independent duty to secure presence; no waiver by counsel
Whether the absence violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	Exclusion from testimony denied Hayes opportunity to confront/co‑defense testimony	Even if error, harmless because the record already contained both versions and no unique evidence was withheld	Court: Exclusion was error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the reasonably‑substantial‑relationship test
Whether the error affected punishment	Hayes: Amos's testimony at that hearing could have reduced Hayes's culpability and punishment if challenged in person	State: Amos's testimony and PSI already before court; Hayes later testified and repeated defenses	Court: Hayes's presence would not have furthered his defense; sentences identical; harmless error

Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (right to be present at trial can be lost by consent or misconduct, not mere inaction)
Garcia v. State, 149 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (right to an interpreter equated to right to understand proceedings; court must implement absent waiver)
Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (framework categorizing rights: mandatory, waiver, forfeiture)
Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (reasonably substantial relationship test for presence and due process)
Routier v. State, 112 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (harmless‑error analysis for Confrontation Clause/presence violations)
Peyronel v. State, 465 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (clarification of Marin categories and waiver analysis)