Randon Lee Foley v. State
06-17-00014-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 15, 2017Background
- Randon Lee Foley was on deferred-adjudication community supervision (state-jail felony theft) nearing completion when the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt alleging drug use (cocaine) and violations of California laws comparable to theft, dating violence, and witness tampering.
- Foley pled true to the allegations; the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to six months in state jail.
- At the hearing, Foley’s community-supervision officer indicated Foley’s supervision term had expired and suggested the only thing keeping the case open was the State’s motion; defense asked for continued community supervision.
- Foley later argued on appeal that the trial court misunderstood available sentencing options (specifically its ability to extend community supervision) and therefore erred, and that he was entitled to credit for time served after arrest on the motion to adjudicate.
- The Court of Appeals held Foley’s sentencing-misunderstanding complaint was not preserved (no timely objection or motion) and found the record inadequate to determine any jail-credit entitlement, so it declined to modify the judgment and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court misunderstood available sentencing options (could extend community supervision) | Foley: court appeared to believe it could not extend supervision; that misunderstanding affected sentencing | State: record does not show any misunderstanding; trial judges presumed to know law | Not preserved for appeal; nothing shows a misunderstanding; point overruled |
| Whether Foley is entitled to credit for time served after arrest on the motion to adjudicate | Foley: at least one day (possibly more) of back-time credit is owed | State: record lacks dates/evidence of incarceration to support credit | Record inadequate to determine credit; appellate court cannot modify judgment; point overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Burt v. State, 396 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App.) (preservation of sentencing issues can be by objection at punishment or when sentence pronounced)
- Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (U.S. 1990) (trial judges presumed to know and apply the law)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (overruled on other grounds referenced for Walton discussion)
- McGregor v. State, 145 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App.) (appellate court may reform judgment only where necessary evidence appears in record)
- Ortiz v. State, 144 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.) (party seeking relief bears duty to develop record showing error)