Segismundo Gonzalez v. State
01-14-00861-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 22, 2015Background
- Gonzalez pleaded guilty to first-degree aggregate theft for embezzling nearly $1 million and sought community supervision.
- He signed a written waiver, agreement to stipulate, and judicial confession; a PSI was prepared and a punishment hearing was held.
- At the punishment hearing the court heard four witnesses (three for the defense) and received exhibits and the PSI.
- At the end of the hearing the trial judge commented to the complainant that granting probation likely would result in no restitution because probationers often do not pay.
- The court sentenced Gonzalez to sixteen years’ confinement (oral sentence); the written judgment mistakenly stated seventeen years and was reformed on appeal to sixteen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judge’s comment showed lack of neutral, detached officer and denial of due process by failing to consider full punishment range | Gonzalez: the comment shows the court was arbitrary, relied on evidence outside the record, and refused to consider entire punishment range | State: record shows the court heard evidence, had PSI and exhibits, advised defendant court would consider full range, and imposed a sentence within the statutory range (lower end) | Court held no Due Process violation: presumption of neutrality not overcome; comment was permissible reference to judicial experience and court considered full range |
| Whether the complaint was forfeited by failure to object at trial | Gonzalez: raised issue on appeal | State: argued failure to preserve error | Court: error regarding consideration of full range is non-forfeitable (waiver-only) and may be raised on appeal; addressed on merits |
| Whether trial court relied on improper extrarecord evidence to deny community supervision | Gonzalez: decision based solely on judge’s anecdotal belief about other probationers not paying restitution | State: judge may permissibly rely on personal experience when making subjective judgments about probation suitability | Court: judge’s comment amounted to permissible reference to experience, not disqualifying bias |
| Whether written judgment should be reformed to reflect oral sentence | Gonzalez: oral sentence was 16 years; written judgment said 17 | State: not contested | Court: reformed judgment to match oral pronouncement (16 years) |
Key Cases Cited
- Unkart v. State, 400 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (preservation rule for judicial comments)
- Buerger v. State, 60 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (due process requires neutral, detached judge who considers full range of punishment)
- Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (failure to consider full range is non-forfeitable, may be raised on appeal)
- Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (presumption of correctness; bias not shown where judge heard evidence and record shows consideration of full range)
- Youkers v. State, 400 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (comments after hearing do not necessarily show failure to consider full range)
- Torres v. State, 92 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (judges may rely on personal experience when assessing suitability for probation)
- Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (oral pronouncement controls over written judgment)