Laquechia Morris v. State
05-17-00019-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 18, 2017Background
- In 2013 Morris pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance (1–4 grams); the trial court deferred adjudication and placed her on two years’ community supervision.
- Supervision was extended; in Sept. 2016 the State moved to revoke supervision or adjudicate guilt.
- At the adjudication hearing the State called no witnesses; Morris pleaded true to two paragraphs of the motion and testified in mitigation, asking for outpatient treatment so she could care for her children.
- The State requested the court impose placement in a substance abuse felony punishment (SAFP) facility; the court adjudicated guilt and ordered SAFP confinement (90 days–1 year), sentencing five years’ confinement probated for five years.
- Morris did not object at trial or in a motion for new trial to the absence of a separate punishment hearing; she appeals claiming the court should have held a separate punishment hearing to allow mitigation evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Morris' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to hold a separate punishment hearing after adjudication of guilt | Issa and art. 42.12 require a separate punishment hearing so Morris could present mitigating evidence | Error not preserved; alternatively no error because Morris had opportunity and did present mitigation at adjudication hearing | No reversible error: Morris waived the separate-hearing claim and had the opportunity to present punishment evidence, so adjudication without a separate hearing was acceptable |
Key Cases Cited
- Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (defendant entitled to opportunity to present punishment evidence after adjudication)
- Hardeman v. State, 1 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (clarifies Issa: right is to opportunity to present mitigation and can be waived)
- Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (punishment hearing after adjudication is a statutory right but may be waived)
- Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (preservation rule: timely request, objection, or motion required to preserve error for appeal)