Opinion
14-23-00821-CR
12-19-2024
MICHAEL SCOTT STANLEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish-Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 98307-CR
Panel consists of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson.MEMORANDUM OPINION
Charles A. Spain Justice
After the trial court found that appellant Michael Scott Stanley voluntarily absented himself from trial, the trial court proceeded without appellant present. A jury found appellant guilty of possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), a state-jail felony. See Texas Controlled Substances Act, Tex. Health &Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(6), .115(b). The jury found true two felony enhancement paragraphs and assessed punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.425(b) (penalties for repeat and habitual felony offenders on trial for state jail felony), 12.33 (second degree felony punishment). In a single issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in enhancing his punishment because he did not receive adequate notice of the enhancement offense. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as challenged on appeal.
The trial court's judgment erroneously reflects "N/A" as to the enhancement paragraphs.
I. Background
On the morning of trial, the State filed a notice of enhancement paragraphs, alleging that appellant had been previously convicted of two felony offenses: aggravated sexual assault of a child and burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.021(a)(1)(B); 30.02. Appellant's trial counsel objected to the notice on the grounds that it violated appellant's rights to due process and requested a short continuance to research the validity of the convictions. The trial court denied the request for continuance and deemed the notice was sufficient.
Due to the nature of the issue on appeal, it is unnecessary to recite the details of the underlying offense or the enhancement offenses.
II. Analysis
A. Reasonable doubt
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant concedes that the notice was sufficient as to the aggravated sexual assault enhancement offense, but he claims the notice was insufficient regarding the burglary enhancement offense because the notice incorrectly stated the date of his burglary conviction.
However, it is well established that an issue raised on appeal must be the same issue raised by the objection asserted at trial. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a); Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (holding no complaint preserved for appellate review if objection at trial does not comport with issue on appeal). An objection must "let the trial judge know what he wants, why he thinks himself entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the judge to understand him at a time when the trial court is in a proper position to do something about it." Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 877, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (quoting Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)). Here, the record does not reflect that appellant objected to the enhancement notice based on the alleged factual inaccuracy of the offense date; instead, appellant objected to the notice below on due-process grounds. Thus, his argument has not been preserved. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).
Appellant's precise objection was that it would violate his due-process rights because "[t]he defendant has an absolute right to know the consequences of the conviction before jeopardy attaches." Based on the conversation with the trial court, the objection was based on receiving the notice the same day of trial and not having enough time to verify the offenses.
We overrule appellant's sole issue.
B. Correction to the judgment
This court has the power to correct and reform the judgment of the court below "to make the record speak the truth" when it has the necessary data and information to do so. See French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (adopting reasoning of Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 531 (Tex. App.- Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd) (en banc) (Onion, J., retired presiding judge of court of criminal appeals, sitting by designation and writing en banc court's opinion)); Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(a)(2).
Here, the judgment recites "N/A" as to appellant's pleas to the enhancements for his prior felony convictions and the jury's findings on those enhancement paragraphs, but the record clearly reflects that appellant entered a plea of "not true" on both enhancement allegations and that the jury found both enhancements as "true." Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reflect appellant's plea of "not true" and the jury's finding of "true" on the enhancement allegations. Tex.R.App.P. 43.2(b).
III. Conclusion
As modified, we affirm the judgement of the trial court as challenged on appeal.