Thomas Jr Garcia, III v. the State of Texas
This text of Thomas Jr Garcia, III v. the State of Texas (Thomas Jr Garcia, III v. the State of Texas) 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.
Opinion
AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed June 10, 2022
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00558-CR No. 05-21-00559-CR No. 05-21-00560-CR
THOMAS JR GARCIA, III, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 380-82267-2018, 380-82268-2018, 380-81981-2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia
Appellant Thomas Jr Garcia, III appeals three judgments adjudicating guilt
and sentencing him to terms of imprisonment. He raises one issue in which he argues
that the trial judge abused his discretion either by (1) sentencing him to prison
instead of continuing his community supervision or (2) imposing excessive
sentences. We affirm. I. Background
In 2018, appellant was charged with two first-degree felony cases of
aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial judge deferred findings of
guilt, placed appellant on ten years’ community supervision, and made affirmative
deadly-weapon findings.
In 2019, appellant was charged with second-degree felony aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial judge deferred a finding
of guilt, placed appellant on ten years’ community supervision, and made an
affirmative deadly-weapon finding.
In 2020, the State moved to adjudicate appellant’s guilt in all three cases,
alleging that appellant had violated several terms of his community supervision. At
the consolidated hearing of the three motions, appellant pleaded true to the State’s
allegations. There was no plea agreement.
After hearing evidence and argument, the trial judge sentenced appellant to
twelve years’ imprisonment in one aggravated-robbery case, eight years’
imprisonment in the other aggravated-robbery case, and six years’ imprisonment in
the aggravated-assault case.
II. Analysis
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial judge abused his
discretion by sentencing him to prison instead of continuing his community
–2– supervision. Alternatively, appellant argues that the sentences imposed were
excessive.
The State responds that appellant failed to preserve error in the trial court and
that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in any event.
We have held that an appellant must preserve in the trial court certain
challenges to his punishment, such as challenges based on the Eighth Amendment,
Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.), and
challenges based on the objectives stated in § 1.02 of the Texas Penal Code,
Littlebird v. State, No. 05-17-00709-CR, 2018 WL 2926811, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Dallas June 7, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). But
appellant does not rely on the Eighth Amendment or on § 1.02. Instead, he argues
only that, based on the evidence, the judge’s decisions do not best serve the interests
of justice, the community, appellant, and his family. His appellate argument is
generally similar to his closing argument in the trial court.
Assuming without deciding that appellant adequately preserved error, we
conclude that appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion.
A trial judge has wide discretion in sentencing, and we generally will not
disturb the decision on appeal as long as (1) the sentence is within the proper range
of punishment and (2) there is some evidence upon which the trial judge could have
relied in assessing punishment. Sanchez Cabrera v. State, No. 05-20-00293-CR,
2021 WL 1996817, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 19, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not
–3– designated for publication) (citing Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1984)).
Appellant does not dispute that his three sentences are within the statutory
ranges for his crimes. Indeed, his sentences are at the lower ends of the statutory
ranges. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.32(a) (sentence range for first-degree felony is
five to ninety-nine years or life); id. § 12.33(a) (sentence range for second-degree
felony is two to twenty years).
And some evidence supports the trial judge’s decision that appellant’s conduct
warranted the prison sentences given rather than additional community supervision
or shorter sentences. As to the two robbery charges, there was evidence that appellant
drove three other people to a house where the other people beat one victim with a
firearm and shot another victim in the chest. As to the aggravated-assault charge,
there was evidence that appellant intentionally drove his car into another car,
damaging that car and causing minor injuries to a person standing next to that car.
Appellant admitted that he fled the scene even though he knew he had hit the other
car. Appellant also admitted that he previously served six months in jail in 2017 for
a felony theft offense. There was also evidence that, during his probation, appellant
missed appointments with the probation office and used marijuana.
Appellant introduced evidence that he violated the conditions of his
community supervision because of financial difficulties, lack of transportation, and
lack of access to internet. As to the robbery charges, appellant testified that he
–4– thought he was just taking the other people to the house so that they could purchase
marijuana. As to the aggravated-assault charge, he testified that the collision was an
accident and that he tried to drive away because he was scared. He testified that he
would be successful if he were put back on probation.
The trial judge is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the
weight to be given their testimony. James v. State, No. 05-20-00453-CR, 2022 WL
780445, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 15, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication). Although appellant asserts that the trial judge ignored
the evidence of appellant’s circumstances and situation, nothing in the record
suggests that the judge ignored any of the evidence. Some evidence, including the
evidence about the seriousness of the crimes in question, supports the judge’s
punishment decisions. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse
his discretion. See Sanchez Cabrera, 2021 WL 1996817, at *1
III. Conclusion
We overrule appellant’s sole issue on appeal and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
210558f.u05 210559f.u05 /Dennise Garcia// 210560f.u05 DENNISE GARCIA Do Not Publish JUSTICE TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
–5– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
THOMAS JR GARCIA, III, On Appeal from the 380th Judicial Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380-82267- No. 05-21-00558-CR V. 2018. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Molberg and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 10th day of June, 2022.
–6– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
THOMAS JR GARCIA, III, On Appeal from the 380th Judicial Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380-82268- No. 05-21-00559-CR V. 2018.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Thomas Jr Garcia, III v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-jr-garcia-iii-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2022.