Charles Laron Hearne v. State
Charles Laron Hearne v. State
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-09-00219-CR
______________________________
CHARLES LARON HEARNE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District Court
Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 22950
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Charles Laron Hearne has filed a notice of appeal from his convictions of delivery of a controlled substance, delivery of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone, and delivery of a simulated substance. On our review of the clerk’s record, we noted that the trial court’s certification of right of appeal stated that this was a plea agreement case and that Hearne has no right of appeal.
Unless a certification, showing that a defendant has the right of appeal, is in the record, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Because the trial court’s certification affirmatively shows Hearne has no right of appeal, and because the record before us does not reflect that the certification is incorrect, see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), we must dismiss the appeal.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: February 1, 2010
Date Decided: February 2, 2010
Do Not Publish
is that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to sentence the defendant to a substance abuse felony punishment (SAFP) facility as a condition of community supervision.
Fatal to his issue on appeal is the fact that Fountain did not complain about the sentence at the time of sentencing and did not file a motion for new trial complaining about the sentence.[3] Thus, the error, if any, is not preserved for appellate review. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Mullins v. State, 208 S.W.3d 469, 470 n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.).[4]
For the reasons stated, we affirm.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: July 30, 2010
Date Decided: August 6, 2010
Do Not Publish
[1]Given Fountain’s prior felony conviction, a jury could not have placed him on community supervision.
[2]Fountain’s appellate attorney, at Fountain’s request, attached to his brief a letter from Fountain complaining of a number of alleged errors. There is no right to hybrid representation, and we will not address the complaints contained in the letter. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
[3]Fountain filed a motion to set aside the judgment, but did not complain about the sentence in that motion.
[4]Even if the issue had been preserved, the trial court did not err. If a trial court places a defendant on community supervision, the trial court may require as a condition of community supervision “that the defendant serve a term of confinement and treatment in a substance abuse treatment facility” for a term of “not more than one year or less than 90 days.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 14(a) (Vernon Supp. 2009). However, Fountain was not eligible for community supervision. A defendant is not eligible for community supervision if he or she “is sentenced to a term of imprisonment that exceeds 10 years.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 3(e)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2009). Because Fountain was sentenced to twelve years, Fountain could not be placed on community supervision. A defendant must be on community supervision to be eligible for SAFP. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 14(b)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2009).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.