From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Nov 29, 2005
No. 05-05-00648-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 29, 2005)

Summary

concluding trial court complied with article 42.03 when assessing punishment

Summary of this case from Swartz v. State

Opinion

No. 05-05-00648-CR

Opinion issued November 29, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F02-73789-MU. Affirmed.

Before Justices WHITTINGTON, WRIGHT, and MAZZANT.


OPINION


Alexander Williams waived a jury trial and entered a negotiated guilty plea to assault-family violence, with one prior conviction of assault-family violence. He also pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court found the enhancement paragraph true, sentenced appellant to ten years' confinement, probated for five years, and assessed a $1500 fine. Subsequently, the State moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging two violations. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motion. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant's probation, and sentenced him to four years' confinement and a $1500 fine. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court failed to pronounce sentence in his presence. We affirm. Appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to orally pronounce the sentence in his presence. Appellant asserts that although the trial court assessed punishment, that assessment did not constitute the pronouncement of the sentence, as mandated by article 42.03, section 1(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant did not complain about the manner in which the trial court pronounced sentence either at the time the sentence was imposed or in his motion for new trial. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1). By failing to bring this issue before the trial court by proper objection or motion, appellant has waived any perceived error. See id.; Tenon v. State, 563 S.W.2d 622, 623-24 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Moreover, no set formula is required for the judge to pronounce sentence. The judgment shows the sentence started the same day it was pronounced. We conclude the trial court complied with article 42.03, section 1. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03 § 1(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). We resolve appellant's sole issue against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Nov 29, 2005
No. 05-05-00648-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 29, 2005)

concluding trial court complied with article 42.03 when assessing punishment

Summary of this case from Swartz v. State
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Nov 29, 2005

Citations

No. 05-05-00648-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 29, 2005)

Citing Cases

Swartz v. State

No set formula is required. Williams v. State, No. 05-05-00648-CR, 2005 WL 3163784, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas…