Andrei Ladon Christian v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 28, 2011
• Docket: 11-11-00036-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed July 28, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-11-00036-CR __________

ANDREI LADON CHRISTIAN, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17474B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Andrei Ladon Christian entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery, and the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty-five years. We affirm. In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his motion for new trial. Appellant asserted in his motion for new trial that he was surprised by the State’s failure to call the victims to testify at the punishment stage, which impacted appellant’s sentence because appellant was unable to cross-examine the victims and make the court aware of their character, reputation, and criminal history. An appellate court reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court but, rather, must decide whether the trial court’s decision was arbitrary or unreasonable. Id. A trial court abuses its discretion in denying a motion for new trial only when no reasonable view of the record could support the trial court’s ruling. Id. Nothing in the record from the punishment hearing or the hearing on the motion for new trial in this case shows that the victims were available to testify at the punishment hearing or that the victims had been subpoenaed to testify. Furthermore, appellant has not shown what the victims’ testimony would have been or how the character, reputation, or criminal history of the victims would have been helpful to appellant or relevant to his punishment. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for new trial. See Melancon v. State, 66 S.W.3d 375, 379 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d). Appellant’s issue is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

July 28, 2011 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Hill, J.1

1 John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.