THE COURT: Go ahead.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. I got to SAFPF or I got to county jail and I was looking forward to going to SAFPF. I was going to go do the program and I got there and it really didn't seem to be addressing my needs, the addiction needs that I had. So, the way the program is set up was that you go to group four times a day, four hours a day in the mornings. It's like a pep rally, kind of, do world to world and recognize - -

THE COURT: I'm not trying to be rude, but you're boring me with all that. I don't care to know.

THE DEFENDANT: I didn't think it was addressing my needs.

THE COURT: I don't care to know what your personal opinion about the program is because it does work for a lot of people. What else do you have to say?

THE DEFENDANT: Just at this time, I'm asking you to consider revoking my probation and give me the minimum sentence you think is fair.

THE COURT: Okay.

The appellate court's explanation is precious:

The appellant casts the trial judge's comments as a refusal to consider proffered punishment evidence. However, we view the trial judge's statements as an articulation that the appellant's explanation for his failure to complete the program was unpersuasive. Appellant contends the comments demonstrate that he was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to present mitigating evidence in punishment and the trial judge did not function as a neutral, detached officer; however, his comments relate exclusively to the appellant's failure to complete the drug treatment program. That failure happens to be the State's sole ground for revoking the community supervision orders and proceeding with adjudication of guilt. Although the appellant, in effect, asked the trial court to consider the program's shortcomings in mitigation of punishment, the trial court's comments regarding the weight of that evidence directly affected the decision to adjudicate. Furthermore, by expressly asking Hergert, "What else do you have to say?", the trial judge clearly presented Hergert with an opportunity to present additional evidence in punishment.

You see, politeness matters.

The old "it's everybody's fault but mine" argument.

24 months is my guess.

I'm guessing that prior to this exchange, the def. attorney states, "Judge, I would like the record to reflect that against my advice, my client would like to address the court. I have explained the possible ramifications and stuff but he wants to address you personally and give his explanation and reasons. Again, against my advice."

35 years

all lives in being plus 21 years.

It's been a few years since property law but is that a reference to the rule against perpetuities

10 years

The trial court proceeded with an adjudication of guilt and sentenced Hergert to two year terms of confinement in each of two burglary of a building cases (SJF), and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Newell:
all lives in being plus 21 years.

---

I like David's answer better than mine, but even though JB's post didn't mention the offense or the level of felony, it just had the aura of something a state jail defendant would say, asking for the minimum. I know other levels of felonies ask for the minimum too, but I've heard it most often from SJF'ers.

Nice sentence.

After four solid years of the hell that is State Jail, I suspect he will look back with real fondness at the pep rallys he attended at SAF-P.

I continue to marvel that Texas has a truth in sentencing. You can say a lot about the SJF and its failures (largely because of TDCJ's failure to develop it into the community-based sentence it was supposed to be), but it is still a true sentence that actually gets served.