Morelos, Gilbert Reyes, PD-0588-15

Petitioner Gilbert Reyes Morelos pled guilty to intoxication manslaughter on June 18, 2014.
A contested punishment hearing occurred July 24, 2014; at that hearing Morelos presented family and remorse evidence and testified he stopped drinking and attends AA; he has no prior felony convictions.
On December 8, 2014, Judge Juanita Pavlick (by assignment) sentenced Morelos to 10 years in TDCJ‑ID.
Before closing argument at sentencing, Morelos asked to reopen to present an additional witness he had discovered after the punishment hearing; the trial court denied the request, citing an agreement that evidence was concluded.
An untimely direct appeal was dismissed by the Eleventh Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction; Morelos filed this Petition for Discretionary Review raising (1) that the 10‑year sentence was an abuse of discretion and (2) that the court erred in refusing to reopen to allow the additional witness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Morelos)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the 10‑year sentence is unreasonable/constitutes an abuse of discretion	Sentence is excessive under the facts: strong mitigating evidence (no prior felonies, remorse, sobriety, family responsibilities) warrants new punishment hearing	Sentence is within statutory range and therefore prima facie reasonable	Trial court imposed a 10‑year sentence; petitioner claims abuse but appellate court dismissed his untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction; PDR asks CCA to review
Whether the trial court abused discretion by refusing to reopen punishment to admit an additional witness	Reopening was required because any evidence relevant to punishment should be admitted and reopening is required when evidence is necessary to the due administration of justice	Trial court relied on parties’ agreement at the punishment hearing that evidence was concluded and denied reopening	Trial court denied the motion to reopen; petitioner contends this was reversible error and requests a new punishment hearing; lower appellate court did not decide merits due to jurisdictional dismissal

Ex Parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (principle that courts should consider circumstances in assessing discretionary relief)
State v. Manusco, 919 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (review of sentencing for abuse of discretion)
Ex Parte Mabry, 137 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (a sentence within statutory range is prima facie reasonable)
Peek v. State, 106 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial judge must reopen under art. 36.02 when proffered evidence is necessary to a due administration of justice)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (standards for abuse of discretion review)
Sunbury v. State, 88 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (at punishment phase, broad admissibility for evidence relevant to punishment)
Arriaga v. State, 335 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. App. 2010) (consideration of mitigating facts in assessing sentence)