Opinion
No. 10-05-00004-CR
Opinion delivered and filed July 13, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 220th District Court, Bosque County, Texas, Trial Court No. 03-07-13648-Bccr. Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA. (Justice VANCE concurring with note)
(Justice Vance concurs. The perfunctory manner in which this opinion disposes of the issue does not assist the litigants, the higher courts, the Bench and Bar, or the public. Apparently cumulation orders is a hot topic, based on the appeals we are seeing. I believe we should provide more of the facts and our analysis in memorandum opinions. Although I concur in the result, I cannot join this opinion.)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Miller appeals her sentence for second-degree-felony possession of methamphetamine. See TEX. HEALTH SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (d) (Vernon 2003). We affirm. In her sole issue, Miller argues that the State should have given notice of its intent to seek cumulation of her sentences before the close of the evidence. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.08(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). We assume without deciding that Miller's request to withdraw her plea preserves her complaint. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Marrow v. State, No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 4592, at *2-*3 (Tex.App.-Waco June 15, 2005, no pet. h.). The decision to cumulate a defendant's sentences is in the trial court's discretion in almost every case. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.08(a); see Ex parte Townsend, 137 S.W.3d 79, 81 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); Pettigrew v. State, 48 S.W.3d 769, 771 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). The statute does not require notice. See Millslagle v. State, 150 S.W.3d 781, 784-85 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, pet. dism'd). We overrule Miller's issue. Having overruled Miller's issue, we affirm the judgment.