Opinion
No. 05-04-01818-CR
Opinion Issued October 17, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F02-49136-UH. AFFIRMED.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, LANG-MIERS, MAZZANT.
OPINION
Charles Lewis Taylor waived a jury trial and entered a non-negotiated guilty plea to burglary of a habitation and pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (Vernon 2003). The trial court found the enhancement paragraphs true, deferred adjudicating guilt, and placed appellant on ten years' community supervision. The State later moved to proceed with adjudication of guilt, alleging several probation violations. After appellant pleaded true to the allegations, the trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced him to twenty-five years' confinement. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in adjudicating guilt and sentencing him without conducting a separate sentencing hearing. We affirm. Appellant did not complain about the trial court's failure to conduct a separate punishment hearing either at the time sentence was imposed or in his motion for new trial. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). Thus, appellant has not preserved his complaint for review. Moreover, contrary to appellant's argument, Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992), does not stand for the absolute right to a separate punishment hearing. See Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Instead, it requires a defendant to have the opportunity to present evidence in mitigation of punishment if not afforded an opportunity during adjudication. See id. In this case, appellant presented evidence about his drug addiction, explained his probation violations, and testified about his four previous penitentiary sentences. It is immaterial that the presentation of this evidence occurred before the actual words of adjudication. See Hardeman v. State, 1 S.W.3d 689, 691 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). We resolve appellant's sole issue against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.