Gerald Morris v. Floyd Morris and Sue Morris--Appeal from County Court at Law of Anderson County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 12th District Court of Appeals » 2003 » Gerald Morris v. Floyd Morris and Sue Morris--Appeal from County Court at Law of Anderson County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 12-03-00085-CV

Case Date: 12/03/2003

Plaintiff: Gerald Morris

Defendant: Floyd Morris and Sue Morris--Appeal from County Court at Law of Anderson County

Preview:Joseph Curtis Francois v. State of Texas--Appeal from
Criminal District Court of Jefferson County
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-01-380 CR
JOSEPH CURTIS FRANCOIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 78021
O P I N I O N
Appellant Joseph Curtis Francois pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery, a first degree felony. The trial
court deferred adjudication of his guilt and placed him on community supervision for ten years. The State filed a
motion to revoke based on alleged violations of the community supervision order. Francois pleaded true to three of the
alleged violations of his community supervision order, and the trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to
fifteen years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice -- Institutional Division. On appeal he raises two points of
error. We have jurisdiction over the issue relating to the process by which Francois was sentenced. See Vidaurri v.
State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
Francois first contends the sentence of fifteen years is excessive and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under
the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; alternatively, he argues the trial court should have permitted
him to remain on community supervision. He maintains the fifteen year sentence was too harsh in light of the nature of
his community supervision violations: failing to pay court assessed fees, leaving the Jefferson County Restitution
Center without permission, and being terminated from his job because of poor work performance. We note the trial
court did not sentence Francois to fifteen years for violating the community supervision order. His sentence is for the
offense of aggravated robbery, a first degree felony punishable by a term not more than ninety-nine or less than five
years. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 12.32(a), 29.03 (Vernon 1994).
Francois did not object to the sentence below, either at the sentencing hearing or in a motion for new trial and, as a
result, has not preserved the issue for review. See Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 844 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1999,
no pet.). Even if properly preserved, however, his point of error has no merit. The fifteen year sentence is within the
punishment range allowed by law for a first degree felony, and no evidence of disproportionality of punishment was
presented to the trial court. See Diaz-Galvan v. State, 942 S.W.2d 185, 186 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet.
ref'd) (no record presented showing the error).
We also note that Francois urges this court to adopt a rule requiring the trial court to give a defendant "one more
chance" on probation after the first motion to revoke is filed. Even if this type of argument had any validity, we do not
have jurisdiction to address this complaint as it relates to the trial court's determination to adjudicate guilt. See Manuel
v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12(5)(b) (Vernon Supp.
2002). Point of error one is overruled.
In his second point of error, Francois contends that upon revocation of his community supervision and adjudication of
his guilt, the trial court erred in sentencing him to fifteen years when the plea agreement (1) was for a cap of ten years.
However, if the State recommends a cap of ten years in exchange for the defendant's plea of guilty and the trial court
follows the plea bargain in giving defendant deferred adjudication and community supervision, then the trial judge
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6629.html[8/20/2013 7:21:25 PM]

does not exceed the recommendation if, upon proceeding to an adjudication of guilt, the judge later assesses any
punishment within the range allowed by law. See Woods v. State, 68 S.W.3d 667, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Ditto v.
State, 988 S.W.2d 236, 239-40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
The conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
DAVID B. GAULTNEY
Justice
Submitted on July 29, 2002
Opinion Delivered August 28, 2002
Do Not Publish
Before Walker, C.J., Burgess, and Gaultney, JJ.
1. The written plea agreement does not contain the defendant's or his counsel's signature. However, at the plea hearing,
the trial judge expressly referenced the plea agreement entered into by appellant and his attorney and treated the case
as if it did involve a plea bargain. Appellant has never disputed below or on appeal the existence of a plea bargain.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6629.html[8/20/2013 7:21:25 PM]

Download 6629.pdf