AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed March 1, 2021
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00094-CR No. 05-20-00095-CR No. 05-20-00096-CR No. 05-20-00097-CR PAUL TERRY WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F18-59009-N; F18-59010-N; F18-45682-N; and F19-52772-N
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Reichek While on probation for multiple offenses, Paul Terry Williams was charged
with burglary of a habitation. After a jury convicted him of the offense, the trial
court imposed a fifteen-year prison sentence, revoked his probation in the earlier
offenses, and assessed punishment in those cases.
Appellant brings a single issue in each appeal, asserting that his sentences
violate the objectives of prohibitions, penalties, and correctional measures of the
Texas Penal Code. In a single cross-point, the State asks this Court to modify the judgment in the burglary case to reflect that the trial court assessed the sentence. For
reasons set out below, we overrule appellant’s issues and sustain the State’s cross-
issue. We modify the judgment in Cause No. 05-20-00097-CR and affirm as
modified; we affirm the judgments in the remaining causes.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2019, as part of a plea bargain agreement, appellant pleaded
guilty to obstruction or retaliation (Cause No. 05-20-00094-CR), fraudulent use or
possession of fifty or more items of identifying information (Cause No. 05-20-
00095-CR), and credit card or debit card abuse (Cause No. 05-20-00096-CR). In
each case, the trial court accepted appellant’s plea, deferred a finding of guilt, and
placed appellant on probation for three years.
Two weeks later, appellant was arrested for burglary of a habitation after he
was identified as the man who entered a woman’s apartment, told her he had a gun,
and demanded her cell phone. Soon after, the State filed a motion to revoke his
probation and proceed with adjudications of guilt, alleging commission of the new
offense as a probation violation.
At the burglary trial, Erianysha Carter testified she and her infant son were
alone in her apartment when appellant entered, told her he had a gun, and warned
her not to say anything or he would kill her and her child. Appellant demanded her
cell phone, and Carter gave him her purse, which contained the phone, several
hundred dollars in cash, and her identifying information. She told him that was all
–2– she had and asked him to leave. As he walked out the door, appellant told her to
“remember, I know who you are.” Carter testified she thought appellant was going
to kill her.
Her boyfriend arrived minutes later, and she called the police. While waiting
for them to arrive, she remembered she could track her phone. She and her boyfriend
tracked the phone to a nearby restaurant and went there. Appellant, who was seated
in a corner, got up and approached the couple. An altercation ensued that continued
outside. When the police arrived, they separated the parties and determined that
Carter was the victim in the prior burglary call. The police searched appellant and
found a large amount of cash, credit cards, cell phones, phone chargers, headphones,
and jewelry. Carter’s cell phone, which had a picture of her and her son on the home
screen, was also in his possession. Appellant was arrested at the scene.
After hearing the evidence, the jury convicted appellant. Appellant elected
for the trial court to assess punishment. The State presented evidence of appellant’s
twenty-four previous misdemeanor or state jail felony convictions on primarily theft
and criminal trespass charges. In addition, Carter testified about how the incident
had affected her life. She said she immediately moved from the apartment and
returned to her old home. She said an aunt moved in with her because she could not
sleep. She also testified that she changed careers because she has anxiety attacks
from large crowds and never feels safe.
–3– Appellant’s mother and sister testified on his behalf and explained that
appellant had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder as a child and later with
schizophrenia. They testified that when he takes his medications, he “does all right”
and is “pretty normal” but once he “feels like he’s doing better,” he stops taking
them and “it’s not good.” His mother said appellant had been in psychiatric facilities
before but was not kept long enough to be of help to him. Both believed appellant
would benefit from a psychiatric facility more than prison, and testified he had not
had the opportunity to learn coping skills, to take his medications, and to get
appropriate counseling. The State, however, pointed to evidence showing that while
on probation in 2012, appellant failed to participate in the Atlas Mental Health
Program as required by the conditions of his probation. Additionally, evidence
showed that he was required to participate in psychological/psychiatric treatment
counseling part of his current probation.
After hearing the evidence presented, the trial court revoked appellant’s
probation in each case and found him guilty of each offense. The court then assessed
concurrent sentences of fifteen years for burglary of a habitation; ten years for
obstruction or retaliation; fifteen years for fraudulent use or possession of identifying
information; and two years for credit card or debit card abuse. When imposing
–4– punishment, the trial court specifically noted he took into account appellant’s mental
health and the fact that his prior criminal history did not include any “3g” offenses.1
ANALYSIS
In each appeal, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
sentencing him to prison because the sentence violates the penal code objectives of
deterrence, rehabilitation, and prevention. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.02. In
particular, he asserts his sentence does not meet the objective of rehabilitation or
address his mental health problems and is merely punitive. Appellant asserts he had
been on probation for only two weeks prior to committing the burglary and his
probation was to have been supervised by the mental health department. He
contends that there is “no reason” to believe that, if he had received “proper help”
from mental health officials for a longer period of time, he would not have been
successful on probation.
To preserve error relating to the propriety and severity of punishment, a
defendant must object to the sentence in the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1);
Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (“As a general rule,
an appellant may not assert error pertaining to his sentence or punishment where he
failed to object or otherwise raise such error in the trial court.”). Here, appellant did
1 The trial court’s reference is to the offenses listed in section 3(g) of Article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is now found at Article 42A.054(a). See Act of May 26, 2015, 84th Leg.., R.S., ch. 770, §§ 1.01, 3.01, 2015 Tex. Gen. Laws 2321, 2321–65, 2395 (H.B. 2299) (eff. Jan.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed March 1, 2021
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00094-CR No. 05-20-00095-CR No. 05-20-00096-CR No. 05-20-00097-CR PAUL TERRY WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F18-59009-N; F18-59010-N; F18-45682-N; and F19-52772-N
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Reichek While on probation for multiple offenses, Paul Terry Williams was charged
with burglary of a habitation. After a jury convicted him of the offense, the trial
court imposed a fifteen-year prison sentence, revoked his probation in the earlier
offenses, and assessed punishment in those cases.
Appellant brings a single issue in each appeal, asserting that his sentences
violate the objectives of prohibitions, penalties, and correctional measures of the
Texas Penal Code. In a single cross-point, the State asks this Court to modify the judgment in the burglary case to reflect that the trial court assessed the sentence. For
reasons set out below, we overrule appellant’s issues and sustain the State’s cross-
issue. We modify the judgment in Cause No. 05-20-00097-CR and affirm as
modified; we affirm the judgments in the remaining causes.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2019, as part of a plea bargain agreement, appellant pleaded
guilty to obstruction or retaliation (Cause No. 05-20-00094-CR), fraudulent use or
possession of fifty or more items of identifying information (Cause No. 05-20-
00095-CR), and credit card or debit card abuse (Cause No. 05-20-00096-CR). In
each case, the trial court accepted appellant’s plea, deferred a finding of guilt, and
placed appellant on probation for three years.
Two weeks later, appellant was arrested for burglary of a habitation after he
was identified as the man who entered a woman’s apartment, told her he had a gun,
and demanded her cell phone. Soon after, the State filed a motion to revoke his
probation and proceed with adjudications of guilt, alleging commission of the new
offense as a probation violation.
At the burglary trial, Erianysha Carter testified she and her infant son were
alone in her apartment when appellant entered, told her he had a gun, and warned
her not to say anything or he would kill her and her child. Appellant demanded her
cell phone, and Carter gave him her purse, which contained the phone, several
hundred dollars in cash, and her identifying information. She told him that was all
–2– she had and asked him to leave. As he walked out the door, appellant told her to
“remember, I know who you are.” Carter testified she thought appellant was going
to kill her.
Her boyfriend arrived minutes later, and she called the police. While waiting
for them to arrive, she remembered she could track her phone. She and her boyfriend
tracked the phone to a nearby restaurant and went there. Appellant, who was seated
in a corner, got up and approached the couple. An altercation ensued that continued
outside. When the police arrived, they separated the parties and determined that
Carter was the victim in the prior burglary call. The police searched appellant and
found a large amount of cash, credit cards, cell phones, phone chargers, headphones,
and jewelry. Carter’s cell phone, which had a picture of her and her son on the home
screen, was also in his possession. Appellant was arrested at the scene.
After hearing the evidence, the jury convicted appellant. Appellant elected
for the trial court to assess punishment. The State presented evidence of appellant’s
twenty-four previous misdemeanor or state jail felony convictions on primarily theft
and criminal trespass charges. In addition, Carter testified about how the incident
had affected her life. She said she immediately moved from the apartment and
returned to her old home. She said an aunt moved in with her because she could not
sleep. She also testified that she changed careers because she has anxiety attacks
from large crowds and never feels safe.
–3– Appellant’s mother and sister testified on his behalf and explained that
appellant had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder as a child and later with
schizophrenia. They testified that when he takes his medications, he “does all right”
and is “pretty normal” but once he “feels like he’s doing better,” he stops taking
them and “it’s not good.” His mother said appellant had been in psychiatric facilities
before but was not kept long enough to be of help to him. Both believed appellant
would benefit from a psychiatric facility more than prison, and testified he had not
had the opportunity to learn coping skills, to take his medications, and to get
appropriate counseling. The State, however, pointed to evidence showing that while
on probation in 2012, appellant failed to participate in the Atlas Mental Health
Program as required by the conditions of his probation. Additionally, evidence
showed that he was required to participate in psychological/psychiatric treatment
counseling part of his current probation.
After hearing the evidence presented, the trial court revoked appellant’s
probation in each case and found him guilty of each offense. The court then assessed
concurrent sentences of fifteen years for burglary of a habitation; ten years for
obstruction or retaliation; fifteen years for fraudulent use or possession of identifying
information; and two years for credit card or debit card abuse. When imposing
–4– punishment, the trial court specifically noted he took into account appellant’s mental
health and the fact that his prior criminal history did not include any “3g” offenses.1
ANALYSIS
In each appeal, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
sentencing him to prison because the sentence violates the penal code objectives of
deterrence, rehabilitation, and prevention. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.02. In
particular, he asserts his sentence does not meet the objective of rehabilitation or
address his mental health problems and is merely punitive. Appellant asserts he had
been on probation for only two weeks prior to committing the burglary and his
probation was to have been supervised by the mental health department. He
contends that there is “no reason” to believe that, if he had received “proper help”
from mental health officials for a longer period of time, he would not have been
successful on probation.
To preserve error relating to the propriety and severity of punishment, a
defendant must object to the sentence in the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1);
Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (“As a general rule,
an appellant may not assert error pertaining to his sentence or punishment where he
failed to object or otherwise raise such error in the trial court.”). Here, appellant did
1 The trial court’s reference is to the offenses listed in section 3(g) of Article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is now found at Article 42A.054(a). See Act of May 26, 2015, 84th Leg.., R.S., ch. 770, §§ 1.01, 3.01, 2015 Tex. Gen. Laws 2321, 2321–65, 2395 (H.B. 2299) (eff. Jan. 1, 2017) (enacting nonsubstantive revisions of certain community supervision laws, including addition of Chapter 42A and repeal of Article 42.12). –5– not object to the propriety or severity of his concurrent sentences. Nor did he
complain about the sentences in a motion for new trial. And, when asked by the trial
court if there was any “legal reason” that sentence could not be pronounced, he
indicated there was not.
Appellant nevertheless asserts that he did not need to object because it was
apparent from the record that he wanted to be continued on probation. None of the
cases relied upon by appellant support his contention that simply because a
defendant may have expressed a desire for probation, he need not object on the
ground he advances here. Moreover, to the extent he argues the federal case of
Holquin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020), supports his position,
we are unpersuaded for the reason previously explained by this Court. See Briggs
v. State, No. 05-19-01310-CR, 2020 WL 6268480, at *3 n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Oct. 26, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication). We conclude
appellant has failed to preserve this argument for review.
Even if appellant had preserved his issue, reversal would not be warranted.
We give a great deal of discretion to a trial judge’s determination of the appropriate
punishment in any given case. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1984). Moreover, the general rule is that as long as a sentence is within the
proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Id.
Here, appellant concedes––and the law supports––that his sentences are
within the statutorily authorized range. Burglary of a habitation as charged here is
–6– a second-degree felony, punishable by a term of two to twenty years in prison and
up to a $10,000 fine. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 30.02(c)(2) (burglary of
habitation); 12.33 (second-degree felony punishment). Fraudulent use or possession
of fifty or more items of identifying information is a first-degree felony, punishable
by a term of five to ninety-nine years or life in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. See
id. §§ 32.51(c)(4) (fraudulent use or possession of identifying information); 12.32
(first-degree felony punishment). Obstruction or retaliation is a third-degree felony,
punishable by a term of two to ten years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. See id.
§§ 36.06(c) (obstruction or retaliation); 12.34 (third-degree felony punishment). And
credit card or debit card abuse is a state-jail felony, punishable by 180 days to two
years in a state jail and a fine up to $10,000. See id. §§ 32.31(d) (credit card or debit
card abuse); 12.35 (state jail felony punishment). Moreover, we note that the trial
judge expressly stated on the record that he considered appellant’s mental health
issues when determining a sentence. The court, however, also had before it
appellant’s refusal in 2012 to participate in the mental health services as well as the
circumstances of the burglary offense, Carter’s testimony regarding the impact this
offense has had on her life, and appellant’s prior criminal history. Accordingly, even
if appellant had preserved his issue for review, we cannot conclude the trial court
abused its discretion in imposing the sentences it did. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 1.02(1)(A), (C) (recognizing objectives of deterrence and of punishment as may
–7– be necessary to prevent likely recurrence of criminal behavior). We overrule
appellant’s issue in each case.
STATE’S CROSS-ISSUE
In a cross-issue, the State asks that we modify the judgment to correct an error
in the judgment in Cause No. 05-20-00097-CR, the burglary conviction. The
judgment reflects that the jury assessed punishment, but the record shows that the
trial court assessed punishment. We have the authority to correct a judgment below
to make a record “speak the truth” when we have the necessary data and information
to do so. Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet.
ref’d). Accordingly, we modify the judgment in Cause No. 05-20-00097-CR to
reflect that the trial court assessed punishment.
We affirm as modified the judgment in Cause No. 05-20-00097-CR and
affirm the judgments in the remaining causes.
/Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2
200094F.U05
–8– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
PAUL TERRY WILLIAMS, On Appeal from the 195th Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-59009-N. No. 05-20-00094-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; Justices Molberg and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Nowell participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered March 1, 2021
–9– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
PAUL TERRY WILLIAMS, On Appeal from the 195th Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-59010-N. No. 05-20-00095-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; Justices Molberg and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Nowell participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
–10– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
PAUL TERRY WILLIAMS, On Appeal from the 195th Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-45682-N. No. 05-20-00096-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; Justices Molberg and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Nowell participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
–11– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
PAUL TERRY WILLIAMS, On Appeal from the 195th Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F19-52772-N. No. 05-20-00097-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; Justices Molberg and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Nowell participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
To reflect that punishment was assessed by the trial court.
As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
–12–