Jarrick Ryan Crowe v. State
05-16-00328-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 11, 2016Background
- Appellant Jarrick Ryan Crowe waived a jury and pleaded guilty to four counts of robbery.
- Each case was enhanced by a prior felony, exposing Crowe to the habitual-offender punishment range.
- The trial court assessed punishment at 20 years’ imprisonment in each case.
- Crowe challenged the sentences as punitive and inconsistent with penal-code objectives (seeking probation due to substance abuse and PTSD).
- Crowe also sought corrections to the judgments to (1) identify prosecutors at plea and sentencing, (2) correctly name defense counsel, and (3) correct court-costs in one judgment.
- The State agreed the clerical corrections were appropriate; it argued the sentencing complaint was not preserved and the sentences were within statutory range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Crowe) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether 20-year sentences violate penal-code objectives and are an abuse of discretion | Sentences are merely punitive, not rehabilitative; requests probation based on drug/alcohol addiction and PTSD | Error not preserved (no timely objection); sentences are within statutory range and thus not cruel/excessive | Not preserved for review; in any event 20-year sentences are within statutory range and affirmed |
| 2. Whether judgments should show correct prosecutors for plea and sentencing hearings | Judgment should reflect Dalerie Moore (plea) and Trey Stock (sentencing) as State attorneys | Agrees judgments should be modified | Court ordered judgments modified to list Dalerie Moore and Trey Stock as attorneys for the State |
| 3. Whether judgment should show correct defense counsel name | Judgment should show defense counsel as Stuart Parker (full name) | Agrees judgments should be modified | Court ordered judgments modified to list Stuart Parker as defense counsel |
| 4. Whether court costs are correctly stated in cause no. 05-16-00328-CR | Correct court costs are $249 (three judgments show $249; one incorrectly shows $2479) | Agrees to correction | Court ordered judgment modified to reflect 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, no pet.) (preservation requires timely objection)
- Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, pet. ref’d) (sentence within statutory range is not excessive)
- Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (appellate courts will not disturb sentences within statutory range)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate correction of clerical errors in judgments)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd) (same)