Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Roberto Alonzo Cancel v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-06-00460-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 24, 2007; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Roberto Alonzo Cancel was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon after entering an open plea of guilty, and he was sentenced to twenty years of confinement. The conviction stemmed from an incident on November 7, 2005, where Cancel, then seventeen, committed the robbery while armed with a loaded gun. During the punishment hearing, evidence presented included Cancel's testimony about feeling a 'rush' during the crime and his alcohol and drug usage history, including a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and prior juvenile offenses. A presentence investigation report (PSI) was prepared, initially recommending 'shock probation,' which was later clarified as incorrect since such probation was not available for his conviction. The PSI recommended deferred adjudication community supervision, but the court ultimately assessed the punishment as confinement. Cancel filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the erroneous PSI influenced the court's sentencing decision. The trial court held a hearing on this motion but ultimately denied it. Swindle testified at the hearing that he would recommend community supervision for Appellant, despite shock probation being unavailable for his conviction. Appellant's mother indicated that the aggravated robbery occurred during her separation from Appellant's father. A friend, Chase Marsden, testified that while Appellant smokes marijuana, he does not use hard drugs or belong to a gang, and expressed willingness to support Appellant if a new trial was granted. Appellant himself stated he was scared during the offense, claimed he would not have pulled the trigger, expressed remorse, and said he could comply with community supervision terms. The trial court ultimately denied Appellant's motion for a new trial, which he argued was based on excessive sentencing given the mitigating evidence presented. The review standard for the denial of a new trial is abuse of discretion, meaning the trial court's decision must be assessed against established rules or principles. Punishment within statutory limits is typically not deemed excessive. Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, facing a potential life sentence but receiving a 20-year confinement, which is within the statutory range. The trial court acknowledged Swindle’s error regarding shock probation but showed no confusion over Appellant's eligibility. The court also allowed for the presentation of additional mitigating evidence. Ultimately, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial, affirming the trial court's judgment.