Storm, Melanie, PD-0621-15

Melanie Storm pled guilty to theft under $1,500 with two prior convictions and reserved punishment for a later hearing.
The trial court continued proceedings for preparation of a presentence investigation report (PSI) and, at the punishment hearing, admitted the PSI into evidence and took judicial notice of its contents.
No objection to admission of the PSI was made by Storm’s trial counsel; defense counsel expressly stated "No objection."
The trial court denied probation and sentenced Storm to one year in state jail, relying on the PSI; the State emphasized PSI allegations during closing argument.
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Storm forfeited her Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause complaint because she failed to preserve the issue at trial and the preservation exception did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting the PSI at punishment violated the Sixth Amendment confrontation right	Storm: PSI contained testimonial out‑of‑court statements used against her at sentencing, so admission without cross‑examination violated Crawford and requires reversal	State: Storm forfeited the issue by not objecting at trial; existing CCA precedent allowed PSI use at sentencing and an objection would have been futile	Court of Appeals: Forfeiture—Storm failed to preserve the claim; the preservation exception did not apply, so point forfeited and judgment affirmed

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay admissible only if declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (framework for distinguishing testimonial from nontestimonial statements)
Stringer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (PSI evidence may be considered at noncapital sentencing; Crawford protections do not apply to PSI used by judge)
Smith v. State, 227 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (extraneous misconduct in PSI may be considered at punishment even if not proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Confrontation Clause applies at punishment; testimonial reports admitted without cross‑examination can violate right)
De La Paz v. State, 273 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (explains testimonial nature of statements and Confrontation Clause analysis)
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965) (Confrontation Clause applies to the states)
Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (harmless‑error framework for constitutional confrontation errors)
McNac v. State, 215 S.W.3d 420 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Crawford error is subject to harm analysis under appellate rules)