Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Matthew James Mixon entered open guilty pleas to multiple felony counts involving misapplication of fiduciary property, theft, and money laundering. He also pleaded true to allegations that he had violated the conditions of deferred-adjudication community supervision for making a false statement to obtain property or credit.
At the consolidated punishment hearing, the trial court admitted a presentence investigation report without objection and read portions of it before sentencing Mixon. The court imposed concurrent prison terms, including 25-year sentences for the first-degree felonies and 10-year sentences for the remaining offenses and the community-supervision revocation.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that Mixon forfeited his Confrontation Clause challenge because he did not object when the presentence investigation report was admitted. The court rejected his contention that an objection was unnecessary because settled adverse precedent would have made it futile. The postconviction cases on which he relied concerned intervening changes in law and did not excuse preservation on this direct appeal.
The court further held that Mixon’s claim would fail even if preserved. Under controlling Texas precedent, the Confrontation Clause does not apply to information in a presentence investigation report when a trial judge determines punishment in a noncapital case. The court therefore overruled Mixon’s sole issue and affirmed all judgments.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant generally must make a timely trial objection to preserve a Confrontation Clause claim for direct appeal.
- The possibility that existing precedent would make an objection unsuccessful does not, by itself, excuse preservation.
- A presentence investigation report is not subject to the Confrontation Clause when the trial court assesses punishment in a noncapital case.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces two barriers to challenging a presentence investigation report on confrontation grounds in Texas: failure to object forfeits the issue, and controlling precedent forecloses the claim on the merits when a judge assesses punishment in a noncapital case.
Because the appeal was transferred from the Second Court of Appeals, the Eleventh Court applied Second Court precedent where required and expressly joined other Texas appellate courts following the controlling rule.