Full Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00229-CR Natalie Bowen Blades, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee On appeal from the 361st District Court of Brazos County, Texas Judge David G. Hilburn, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 24-04291-CRF-361 JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Natalie Bowen Blades was convicted by a jury for the offense of possession of a controlled substance. The trial court assessed punishment at 12 years in prison. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. In her sole issue on appeal, Blades contends the trial court committed reversible error by considering good time credit and the effect of parole in assessing punishment. Even if the trial court considered good time credit and the effect of parole in assessing Blades’ punishment, a holding we do not make, the plain language of article 37.07, section 4, limits its application to cases submitted to a jury for punishment. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 37.07, § 4(b); Meredith v. State, 189 S.W.3d 395, 398 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref'd). See McCreary v. State, No. 14-22-00782-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 8231, at *12 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 31, 2023, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Blades has not directed the Court’s attention to any statute or case law in which the Legislature nor the Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly precluded a trial court from considering good time credit or parole when punishment is submitted to the trial court. Instead, she asks us to follow the concurring opinion in Meredith and hold that the Legislature intended section 4(b)’s language to include the prohibition when a trial court assesses punishment as well. See Meredith, 189 S.W.3d at 400 (Ross, J., concurring). However, without specific authorization by the Legislature or the Court of Criminal Appeals, we, like the majority opinion in Meredith, “are not inclined to rewrite the plain language of a statute that clearly says it applies only to jury–assessed punishments.” Id. at 399. Accordingly, Blades’ sole issue is overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Blades v. State Page 2 LEE HARRIS Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: September 10, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish CR25 Blades v. State Page 3