Jarrick Ryan Crowe v. State
05-16-00326-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 11, 2016Background
- Appellant Jarrick Ryan Crowe waived a jury and pleaded guilty to four counts of robbery (Tex. Penal Code § 29.02).
- Trial court adjudicated punishment in each case at 20 years’ imprisonment, enhanced by a prior felony, and assessed court costs.
- Appellant did not object at sentencing or raise the sentencing argument in a motion for new trial.
- Appellant argued the 20-year terms are punitive and inconsistent with the Penal Code’s rehabilitative objectives, seeking probation due to substance addiction and PTSD.
- Appellant also sought correction of clerical errors in the judgments: to show both prosecutors’ names, the defense attorney’s full name, and to correct an erroneous court-cost figure in one cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 20-year sentences violated Penal Code objectives and were an abuse of discretion | Crowe: sentences are merely punitive, do not serve rehabilitation; requests probation because of addiction and PTSD | State: issue not preserved for appeal; sentences are within statutory range and thus not excessive | Overruled — issue forfeited for appeal; sentences within statutory (enhanced) range and therefore not cruel/unusual |
| Whether judgments should list prosecutors at plea and sentencing hearings | Crowe: judgments should reflect that Dalerie Moore and Trey Stock represented the State at different hearings | State: agrees judgments should be corrected | Sustained — judgments modified to list both Dalerie Moore and Trey Stock as attorneys for the State |
| Whether judgments should show full name of defense counsel | Crowe: judgment should show Stuart Parker rather than initials | State: agrees judgment should be corrected | Sustained — judgments modified to show Stuart Parker as attorney for defendant |
| Whether court costs in one cause were incorrectly entered | Crowe: cause no. 05-16-00328-CR lists court costs as $2479 but record shows $249 | State: agrees to correct clerical error | Sustained — judgment in cause no. 05-16-00328-CR modified to show court costs of $249 |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (constitutional rights may be waived)
- Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (preservation required for appellate review of sentencing complaints)
- Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997) (sentence within statutory range is not excessive)
- Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (appellate court will not disturb sentence within statutory range)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate correction of clerical judgment errors)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (procedures for modifying judgments to correct clerical matters)