Caster v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Caster v. State

87 S.W.3d 751, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 6519, 2002 WL 2013401

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 4, 2002

Docket06-02-00014-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 87 S.W.3d 751 (Caster v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caster v. State, 87 S.W.3d 751, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 6519, 2002 WL 2013401 (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

*752 OPINION

Opinion by

Chief Justice MORRISS.

Joseph Dewayne Caster appeals from his conviction on his plea of guilty without a plea agreement for the offense of burglary of a habitation. The trial court sentenced Caster to fifteen years’ confinement. Caster was convicted, in a single trial, of this offense and of the offense of assault on a public servant. This appeal concerns only his conviction for burglary of a habitation. The causes have been appealed separately, yet the contentions on appeal are identical.

Caster contends the trial court erred by sentencing him without first ordering a substance abuse evaluation. His contention is based on Tex.Code CRiM. PROC. Ann. ART. 42.12, § 9(h) (Vernon Supp.2002), which provides that, on determination that alcohol or drug abuse may have contributed to the commission of the offense, the trial court shall direct the preparation of an evaluation to determine the appropriateness of rehabilitation for the defendant. Article 42.12, § 9(h)(2) provides specifically that the “evaluation shall be made: ... after conviction and before sentencing, if the judge assesses punishment in the case.”

The statute requires the court to order the evaluation after it determines that alcohol or drug abuse may have contributed to the commission of the offense. It does not specify whether this determination is to be made sua sponte by the court, or whether such a finding must be requested by the defendant in order to bring the statute into play. 1

In this case, however, we need not address that issue. The contention now raised on appeal was not brought to the trial court’s attention. A timely objection or request is a prerequisite to presenting a matter for appellate review. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a). In the absence of such an objection or request, we may not address the issue on appeal. The contention of error is overruled.

We affirm the judgment.

1

. No such determination was made by the court, and none was requested by the defendant in this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*752 OPINION

Opinion by

Chief Justice MORRISS.

Joseph Dewayne Caster appeals from his conviction on his plea of guilty without a plea agreement for the offense of burglary of a habitation. The trial court sentenced Caster to fifteen years’ confinement. Caster was convicted, in a single trial, of this offense and of the offense of assault on a public servant. This appeal concerns only his conviction for burglary of a habitation. The causes have been appealed separately, yet the contentions on appeal are identical.

Caster contends the trial court erred by sentencing him without first ordering a substance abuse evaluation. His contention is based on Tex.Code CRiM. PROC. Ann. ART. 42.12, § 9(h) (Vernon Supp.2002), which provides that, on determination that alcohol or drug abuse may have contributed to the commission of the offense, the trial court shall direct the preparation of an evaluation to determine the appropriateness of rehabilitation for the defendant. Article 42.12, § 9(h)(2) provides specifically that the “evaluation shall be made: ... after conviction and before sentencing, if the judge assesses punishment in the case.”

The statute requires the court to order the evaluation after it determines that alcohol or drug abuse may have contributed to the commission of the offense. It does not specify whether this determination is to be made sua sponte by the court, or whether such a finding must be requested by the defendant in order to bring the statute into play. 1

In this case, however, we need not address that issue. The contention now raised on appeal was not brought to the trial court’s attention. A timely objection or request is a prerequisite to presenting a matter for appellate review. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a). In the absence of such an objection or request, we may not address the issue on appeal. The contention of error is overruled.

We affirm the judgment.

1

. No such determination was made by the court, and none was requested by the defendant in this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.W.3d 751, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 6519, 2002 WL 2013401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caster-v-state-texapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack