v.
State
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00395-CR
NO. 02-13-00396-CR
ANASTASIA LYNETTE COLLUM APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1302596D
TRIAL COURT NO. 1317410D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
I. INTRODUCTION
In one point, Appellant Anastasia Lynette Collum appeals her punishment assessed by the trial court after the revocation of her deferred adjudication After both sides presented evidence and rested, the State waived its right to open closing argument. The court then expressed to Collum’s counsel that he could close. Counsel responded, “If I could have just a moment, Your Honor?” Before counsel could close, however, the trial court offered Collum the choice between four years’ incarceration based upon multiple convictions or the adjudication of the original theft charge (1302596D) with a sentence of two years in jail and deferred adjudication community supervision for the new theft charge (1317410D).
Collum chose to accept the trial court’s option of adjudication of guilt on the original theft charge (1302596D) with a two-year jail term, plus being placed on deferred adjudication community supervision on the new theft charge (1317410D). The trial court rendered judgment accordingly, sentencing Collum to two years in jail and placing her on deferred adjudication community supervision. Neither the trial court, the State, nor Collum’s counsel again mentioned closing arguments, and the hearing came to a close. This appeal followed.
III. DISCUSSION
In her sole point, Collum argues that the trial court erred by not allowing her counsel to make a closing argument. The State argues that Collum failed to preserve this issue for our review. We agree with the State.
A trial court abuses its discretion by denying counsel the right to make a closing argument. See Ruedas v. State, 586 S.W.2d 520, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). But to preserve error in the denial of closing argument, counsel must have notified the trial court of the desire to present closing argument, the trial court must have refused that request, and counsel must have asserted a timely objection to the trial court’s ruling denying closing argument. See Crane v. State, No. 02–08–00122–CR, 2009 WL 214195, at *1 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth Jan. 29, 2009, pet. ref’d) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.
Here, Collum made an equivocal request for closing argument which, by proceeding to adjudicate and sentence her, the trial court impliedly denied. Collum, however, did not voice an objection to the trial court’s implied ruling denying her closing argument. As such, Collum has failed to preserve any error in the trial court’s denial of closing argument. See Habib v. State, 431 S.W.3d 737, 740–41 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014, pet. ref’d) (holding that appellant failed to preserve denial of closing argument issue for appeal because “appellant did not voice an objection to the trial court’s implied ruling denying appellant closing argument”). We overrule Collum’s sole issue on appeal.
IV. CONCLUSION
Having overruled Collum’s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
/s/ Bill Meier BILL MEIER JUSTICE PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: August 28, 2014