Full Opinion

Opinion filed September 10, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-25-00108-CR __________ MATTHEW JAMES MIXON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 213th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1597864, 1814834, & 1839232 M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N1 The trial court sentenced Appellant, Matthew James Mixon, to concurrent terms of imprisonment for a series of felony offenses he committed that involved theft, fraud, and money laundering. In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant contends 1 Pursuant to Misc. Docket Order No. 25-9016 issued by the Texas Supreme Court on April 2, 2025, this appeal was transferred to us from the Second Court of Appeals. Therefore, as the transferee court, we must decide the issues raised in this appeal in accordance with the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals if its precedent conflicts with ours. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him was violated when the trial court considered a presentence investigation report (PSI) during the punishment phase of the proceedings. We affirm. I. Factual Background Appellant entered open pleas of guilty to all counts alleged in the indictments in trial court cause nos. 1839232 and 1814834 and pled “true” to the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate in trial court cause no. 1597864.2 At the consolidated punishment hearing, the PSI was offered and admitted without objection. Before pronouncing Appellant’s sentences, the trial court read portions of the PSI aloud. The trial court found Appellant guilty on all counts in trial court cause nos. 1839232 and 1814834 and adjudicated his guilt in trial court cause no. 1597864. The trial court then: (1) sentenced Appellant to twenty-five years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for each count in trial court cause no. 1839232; (2) sentenced Appellant to ten years’ imprisonment in TDCJ for each count in trial court cause no. 1814834; and (3) found that Appellant had violated certain terms and conditions of his community supervision in trial court cause no. 1597864, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment in TDCJ.3 The trial court ordered that all sentences imposed be served concurrently. 2 Specifically, Appellant pled guilty to the offenses of misapplication of fiduciary property valued at $300,000 or more and theft of property valued at $300,000 or more, first-degree felonies, in trial court cause no. 1839232. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 31.03(e)(7), 32.45(c)(7) (West Supp. 2025). He pled guilty to misapplication of fiduciary property valued at $30,000 or more but less than $150,000, theft of property valued at $30,000 or more but less than $150,000, and money laundering of funds valued at $30,000 or more but less than $150,000, third-degree felonies, in trial court cause no. 1814834. PENAL §§ 31.03(e)(5), 32.45(c)(5), 34.02(e)(2) (West 2016). In trial court cause no. 1597864, Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for the offense of making a false statement to obtain property or credit valued at $30,000 or more but less than $150,000, a third-degree felony. PENAL § 32.32(c)(5). 3 Appellant has appealed from each judgment of conviction, and they were originally docketed in our court as three separate appeals. However, based on our inquiry, and pursuant to Appellant’s request, 2 II. Analysis Appellant contends that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when it considered the PSI during the consolidated punishment proceeding. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI. Yet, Appellant acknowledges that the Court of Criminal Appeals has addressed and squarely rejected this same argument on the merits, 4 and that he failed to preserve this complaint by not objecting to the PSI’s admission. However, citing to Ex parte Hathorn, 296 S.W.3d 570, 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), and Ex parte Turner, 542 S.W.2d 187, 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976), he nonetheless contends that he was not required to preserve his Confrontation Clause complaint because “the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that under circumstances where the law is well-settled to the point where any objection in the trial court would be futile, the claim will not be considered forfeited for later review.” Appellant is mistaken. We note that the Second Court of Appeals, whose precedent we must follow, has considered and expressly rejected this precise argument. See Hubbard v. State, No. 02-23-00067-CR, 2023 WL 7399135, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 9, 2023, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).5 As the court stated in our Cause Nos. 11-25-00109-CR and 11-25-00110-CR were consolidated into Cause No. 11-25-00108-CR for purposes of appeal. 4 See Stringer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 42, 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (“When the sentence is determined by the [trial court in a non-capital case], the information in a PSI is not subject to the Confrontation Clause.”). Thus, in such circumstances, the right of confrontation does not apply. Id. The court’s holding in Stringer has not been abandoned and has been followed by the Second Court of Appeals and several of our other sister courts. See, e.g., Sell v. State, 488 S.W.3d 397, 399 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. ref’d); Ferguson v. State, No. 07-25-00049-CR, 2025 WL 2301302, at *2 n.4 (Tex. App.— Amarillo Aug. 8, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Mendoza v. State, No. 06-18- 00137-CR, 2019 WL 208629, at *1 n.4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 16, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Degraffinried v. State, No. 05-16-01359-CR, 2018 WL 3598953, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 27, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Today, we join them. Appellant and his counsel should be aware of Hubbard and its holding, and other precedent from 5 the Second Court of Appeals to which we have cited, considering that an attorney in the same firm as 3 Hubbard: “Hathorn and Turner are both postconviction writ cases in which the Court of Criminal Appeals held that, in that context, preservation at trial was not required to argue for reversal of a conviction based on a higher-court change in the law that occurred after the trial.” Id. (emphasis added). Here, Appellant was convicted and adjudicated of non-capital offenses and the trial court, pursuant to his election, assessed his punishment for each offense. Further, these cases are not in a postconviction-writ posture, nor has Appellant identified any change in the law since he was sentenced of which he now seeks to take advantage. See id. On direct appeal, the Rules of Appellate Procedure and Court of Criminal Appeals precedent require that Confrontation Clause complaints be preserved at trial or they are forfeited. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); see also Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317, 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (“Confrontation Clause claims are subject to [the] preservation requirement[s].”). Thus, because Appellant did not assert an objection to the PSI’s admission, he did not preserve his complaint for our review. See Hubbard, 2023 WL 7399135, at *2 (citing Davis, 313 S.W.3d at 347); see also Serrano v. State, 636 S.W.3d 717, 720–21 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2021, pet. ref’d); Sell, 488 S.W.3d at 398–99; Jones v. State, No. 02-17-00332-CR, 2018 WL 2992591, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 14, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Lewis v. State, No. 02-18-00149-CR, 2018 WL 2248501, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 17, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Nevertheless, even if Appellant had preserved his complaint, the trial court did not err when it considered the PSI because, in this circumstance, its admission does not violate an accused’s right to confrontation. See Stringer, 309 S.W.3d at 48; Sell, 488 S.W.3d at 399; Degraffinried, 2018 Appellant’s counsel represented the appellant in Hubbard and advanced the same rejected argument that Appellant asserts here. 4 WL 3598953, at *4; Durant v. State, No. 06-16-00211-CR, 2017 WL 1245430, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 5, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s sole issue. III. This Court’s Ruling We affirm the judgments of the trial court. W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE September 10, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 5