Anthony LaQuinn Price v. the State of Texas
Date Filed2022-12-29
Docket07-22-00236-CR
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-22-00236-CR
ANTHONY LAQUINN PRICE, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 181st District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 077023-B-CR, Honorable Titiana D. Frausto, Presiding
December 29, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, in December 2018, Appellant, Anthony LaQuinn
Price, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for three years for
assault family violence and was assessed a $1,000 fine.1 In November 2019, by
amended motion, the State moved to proceed to adjudication alleging Appellant had
violated numerous terms and conditions of his community supervision, including
1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. Ā§ 22.01(b)(2)(B).
committing murder. At a hearing on the Stateās amended motion, Appellant entered a
plea of true to all of the Stateās allegations.2 Based on Appellantās pleas of true, the trial
court found sufficient evidence to adjudicate him guilty of the original offense of assault
family violence and announced it would hear evidence or argument on punishment. The
State introduced three exhibits as punishment evidence, including a copy of Appellantās
conviction for murder for which he was assessed a twenty-year sentence. After the State
rested, defense counsel announced it had āno evidence to present on punishment.ā
The trial court proceeded with closing arguments. The State addressed the murder
conviction and requested the maximum sentence of ten years for assault family violence
run consecutive to the twenty-year sentence in the murder conviction. Defense counsel
argued against imposition of consecutive sentences and argued a jury had found twenty
years confinement appropriate on the murder conviction. The trial court ruled Appellant
would serve ten years for the original offense of assault family violence and assessed a
$1,000 fine. Additionally, the trial court ordered the sentence to run āconsecutively with
any other sentence that you have already been punished to serve.ā
Appellant presents four issues challenging the trial courtās cumulation order.
Specifically, he maintains (1) the trial court violated his right to individualized sentencing
under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Texas law; (2) the
trial court abused its discretion in ordering his sentence to be served consecutively to any
prior sentence; (3) the trial courtās cumulation order is void as insufficient regarding
2 A plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support the trial courtās order. Moses v. State, 590
S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
2
specificity of any previous conviction; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in
refusing him an opportunity to be heard. We modify and affirm the judgment.
ISSUE ONEāINDIVIDUALIZED SENTENCING
Appellant maintains the trial court violated his right to individualized sentencing.
We disagree. Individualized sentencing allows a defendant facing the most serious
penalties to have an opportunity to advance mitigating factors and have those factors
assessed by a judge or jury. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 475ā76,132 S. Ct. 2455
,183 L. Ed. 2d 407
(2012). The Eighth Amendment does not mandate individualized sentencing in adult noncapital cases. Graham v. Florida,560 U.S. 48, 60
,130 S. Ct. 2011
,176 L. Ed. 2d 825
(2010). The United States Supreme Court has expressly refused to extend the Eighth Amendmentās individualized sentencing requirement to adult noncapital cases. Harmelin v. Michigan,501 U.S. 957
, 995ā96,111 S. Ct. 2680
,115 L. Ed. 2d 836
(1991). Appellant was not entitled to individualized sentencing.
In the underlying case, the record does not show that Appellant was prevented
from presenting relevant mitigating evidence. Instead, the record reveals during the
punishment phase, defense counsel announced he had no evidence to present.
Appellant was given āthe opportunity to present evidence during the proceedings. That
is all that is required.ā Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 176, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)
(emphasis in original). Issue one is overruled.
ISSUE TWOāCONSECUTIVE SENTENCES
Appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion in ordering his sentence in
the underlying offense to be served consecutive to a prior sentence. We disagree.
3
A trial court has broad discretion to cumulate sentences. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 42.08(a); Byrd v. State, 499 S.W.3d 443, 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Generally,
sentences run concurrently if the convictions arise out of the same ācriminal episodeā and
the cases are prosecuted in a single criminal action.3 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. Ā§ 3.03(a).
The offense of assault family violence was committed on or about December 18, 2018,
and the murder was committed on or about May 23, 2019. Appellantās crimes did not
arise from the same ācriminal episodeā and were not prosecuted together. Thus, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Appellantās sentences to be served
consecutively. Issue two is overruled.
ISSUE THREEāIS THE CUMULATION ORDER VOID?
Appellant contends the trial courtās cumulation order is void due to a lack of
specificity which is required to notify the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to identify
the prior conviction with which to cumulate the new conviction. We agree the cumulation
order does not contain the required information but disagree it is void.
Appellant correctly notes a cumulation order should be sufficiently specific to allow
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to identify the prior conviction with which the
3 āCriminal episodeā is defined as follows:
the commission of two or more offenses, regardless of whether the harm is directed toward
or inflicted upon more than one person or item of property, under the following
circumstances:
(1) the offenses are committed pursuant to the same transaction or pursuant to
two or more transactions that are connected or constitute a common scheme
or plan; or
(2) the offenses are the repeated commission of the same or similar offenses.
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. Ā§ 3.01.
4
new conviction is cumulated. See Ex parte San Migel, 973 S.W.2d 310, 311(Tex. Crim. App. 1998). A cumulation order should contain the following information: (1) the cause number of the prior conviction, (2) the correct name of the court in which the prior conviction occurred, (3) the date of the prior conviction, (4) the term of years assessed in the prior case, and (5) the nature of the prior conviction. Ward v. State,523 S.W.2d 681, 682
(Tex. Crim. App. 1975); Gaston v. State,63 S.W.3d 893, 900
(Tex. App.āDallas 2001, no pet.). Cumulation orders containing less than the recommended elements have been upheld. Banks v. State,708 S.W.2d 460, 461
(Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
Stateās Exhibit 3, which was admitted into evidence, provides the necessary
information to justify the cumulation order. As the State notes, we have the ability to
modify a judgment when the necessary information is contained in the record. TEX. R.
APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27ā28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
Accordingly, on page three of the judgment under the heading āFurthermore, the
following special findings or orders apply,ā we add the following modification:
The Court orders that the ten-year sentence for assault family violence in
Cause Number 077023-B-CR from the 181st District Court of Potter County,
Texas, imposed on June 30, 2022, shall run consecutively and shall begin
only when the twenty-year sentence for murder in Cause Number 077689-
B-CR from the 181st District Court of Potter County, Texas, imposed on
May 13, 2022, has ceased to operate.
With this modification of the cumulation order, issue three is overruled.
ISSUE FOURāOPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
Appellant maintains the trial court abused its discretion in denying him the
opportunity to be fully heard on the issue of consecutive sentences. We disagree.
5
Defense counsel argued as follows:
[a] Potter County jury of 12 people heard the evidence over a full week and
they decided the punishment [for the murder conviction] was appropriate at
20 years in the Texas Department of Corrections.
I know the State was dissatisfied with that and perhaps the family of the
deceased was dissatisfied with - -
The prosecutor objected that the argument was speculative, and the trial court sustained
the objection. Defense counsel then suggested consecutive sentences would essentially
enhance Appellantās twenty-year sentence the jury had assessed for the murder
conviction. He urged the trial court to punish Appellant solely for assault family violence
for which he was originally placed on three years deferred adjudication.
Here, Appellantās argument is couched in terms of improper jury argument and
what he perceives as an incorrect ruling on his argument that the Stateās motive in seeking
consecutive sentences was to punish him in excess of the twenty-year sentence
assessed in the murder case. He concludes the trial courtās ruling denied him the
opportunity to be heard. We disagree for several reasons.
First, Appellant has not cited any authority and we have found none in which cases
on improper ājuryā argument apply to a bench trial. But see Garcia v. State, No. 13-15-
00508-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 7986, at *13 (Tex. App.āCorpus Christi July 28, 2016,
pet. refād) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (declining to apply the same rules
that restrict jury argument to a bench trial on punishment). Under the circumstances of
the underlying case, we reject the contention that defense counselās argument should
have been allowed as a summation of the evidence, a reasonable deduction drawn from
the evidence, or an answer to opposing counselās argument. However, there was no
6
evidence to show the State requested consecutive sentences in retaliation to the
sentence in the murder case.
Second, Appellant contends our review of the trial courtās ruling excluding his
closing argument should be treated similarly to a ruling excluding evidence, which is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. Although it is not improper for counsel to include
opinions in closing arguments, they should be based on the evidence. Allridge v. State,
762 S.W.2d 146, 156 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (noting that a prosecutor may argue his
opinions as long as they are based on the evidence in the record and do not constitute
unsworn testimony). We apply the same reasoning discussed in Allridge to defense
counselās closing argument that the State was seeking consecutive sentences due to
dissatisfaction with the sentence imposed in the murder conviction and to āappeaseā the
victimās family. In doing so, we find defense counselās argument was based on pure
speculation and not on evidence. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in sustaining the Stateās objection to defense counselās closing argument. Issue four is
overruled.
CONCLUSION
As modified, the trial courtās judgment is affirmed.
Alex L. Yarbrough
Justice
Do not publish.
7