Steven Lamon Moore v. State
12-15-00195-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 28, 2015Background
- Defendant Steven Moore pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver cocaine (first‑degree felony) with two enhancement paragraphs alleging prior felonies, making him subject to habitual‑offender sentencing.
- Plea, stipulation of evidence, and admissions to enhancements occurred before jury selection on the day of trial.
- Immediately after the stipulation, the trial court orally found Moore guilty and found the enhancement paragraphs true, then recessed for a later punishment hearing.
- At the later punishment hearing the court received evidence and argument and sentenced Moore to 35 years’ confinement.
- Appellant’s brief argues the court’s contemporaneous finding of guilt (before any punishment evidence) effectively foreclosed deferred adjudication and reflected a lack of judicial neutrality, violating federal due process and Texas due‑course‑of‑law protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s immediate finding of guilt before hearing punishment evidence denied due process by foreclosing deferred adjudication | Moore: finding guilt before punishment evidence and before considering the full range of sentencing possibilities (including deferral) showed an impartiality that deprived him of due process and due course of law; error is structural and requires reversal | State (anticipated): trial judge had prior factual discussion, suppression hearing, and video review before plea; no contemporaneous objection; any error is forfeited or subject to harm analysis | No appellate ruling in this brief — appellant asks the court to reverse the conviction, recuse the trial judge, and remand for sentencing before a neutral magistrate |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due process requires neutral, detached tribunal in certain post‑conviction proceedings)
- Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (trial court’s arbitrary refusal to consider full range of punishment violates due process)
- Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (judicial neutrality required; due process limits)
- McClenan v. State, 661 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (court may not impose predetermined punishment without considering evidence)
- Lagrone v. State, 209 S.W. 411 (Tex. Crim. App. 1919) (trial judge must maintain impartiality throughout trial)
- Teixeira v. State, 89 S.W.3d 190 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (refusal to consider full punishment range denies due process)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (structural errors affect the framework of the trial and are not subject to harmless‑error analysis)