Stubblefield, Marvin Ray v. The State of Texas

 
AFFIRM; Opinion issued December 7, 2011
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-11-00256-CR
No. 05-11-00257-CR
No. 05-11-00258-CR
............................
MARVIN RAY STUBBLEFIELD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F05-57817-H, F05-57819-H, F05-57820-H
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, O'Neill, and Fillmore
Opinion By Justice Bridges
 
Marvin Ray Stubblefield appeals from the adjudication of his
guilt for three robbery offenses. In a single issue, appellant contends
the trial court erred in imposing a predetermined sentence in each case.
We affirm the trial court's judgments adjudicating guilt. The background
of the cases and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the
parties, and we therefore limit recitation of the facts. We issue this
memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4
because the law to be applied in the cases is well settled.
In each case, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to
robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(2) (West 2011). Pursuant to
plea agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed
appellant on seven years' community supervision, and assessed an $800
fine in each case. On January 7, 2010 and May 24, 2010, the trial court
 
denied the State's motions to adjudicate and continued appellant on
deferred community supervision. On July 23, 2010, the State again filed
motions to adjudicate, alleging appellant violated several conditions of
community supervision. On February 8, 2011, appellant pleaded not true
to the allegations in a hearing on the motions. The trial court found
the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed
punishment at six years' imprisonment in each case. Subsequently,
appellant filed motions for new trial alleging (1) the verdicts are
contrary to the law and the evidence, (2) the evidence is insufficient
to show violations of community supervision, and (3) the trial court
abused its discretion by imposing imprisonment because such punishment
violated the objectives of the penal code. The trial court denied the
motions.
In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in
imposing predetermined sentences. Specifically, appellant points to
statements made by the trial court during the May 24, 2010 hearing
indicating appellant was not going to get “any more chances” to complete
his community supervision, and that appellant had been before the trial
court on three previous occasions and was “out of chances.” Appellant
argues these statements show the trial court never considered any option
other than imprisonment. The State responds that appellant has not
properly preserved his complaint for appellate review and,
alternatively, the trial court did not impose predetermined sentences.
Although appellant filed motions for new trial, he did not
 
object to the imposition of alleged predetermined sentences in the trial
court. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d
719, 723 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (for error to be preserved for
appeal, the record must show appellant made a timely request, objection,
or motion). Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for our review.
Even if we considered the merits of appellant's complaint, it is
without support in the record. Due process requires a neutral and
detached hearing body or officer. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786
(1973). However, absent a clear showing of bias, the trial court's
actions will be presumed to have been correct. Brumit v. State, 206
S.W.3d 639, 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The complained of statements
occurred during the May 24, 2010 hearing where the trial court denied
the State's motion to adjudicate and continued appellant on community
supervision. Nothing in the record shows the trial court failed to
consider the full range of punishment or did not act impartially. See
Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. We resolve appellant's sole issue against
him.
We affirm the trial court's judgments adjudicating guilt.
 
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
110256F.U05
-------------------