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.
Ashley Nicole Williams v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-10-00347-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 19, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Ashley Nicole Williams appeals her conviction for aggravated robbery, for which she pleaded guilty and received a 20-year prison sentence from the trial court. Williams argues that the trial court violated her constitutional rights by considering ex parte communications when determining her punishment. The court found that Williams did not preserve this issue for appeal due to her failure to timely object during sentencing. The facts include Williams robbing a bank with a knife, her subsequent release on bond to care for her grandmother, and her arrest for violating bond conditions. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court referenced letters from the presentence investigation report and criticized Williams for not adhering to the conditions of her release. The court indicated that her behavior led to a harsher sentence than originally contemplated. After her initial appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Williams filed a habeas corpus petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not timely filing an appeal. This led to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granting her the right to an out-of-time appeal. In her current appeal, Williams asserts that the trial court's reliance on ex parte communications infringed upon her rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as article one, section ten of the Texas Constitution, which protect her right to confront witnesses and due process. Williams does not contest the trial court's reliance on the presentence investigation report but suggests that the court's statement regarding her conduct while on bond implies the existence of ex parte communications. She acknowledges that the source of the information used by the court cannot be determined from the record, whether from law enforcement, probation, or another source. The court’s statement could reasonably refer to the presentence investigation report rather than ex parte communication. Even if ex parte communication were assumed, Williams failed to preserve any error for appellate review by not objecting during the trial. According to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a), an appellant must object and secure an adverse ruling to preserve an error. This requirement applies to errors related to the Confrontation Clause and Due Process Clause as well. Consequently, Williams waived her right to appeal the alleged violation of rights due to unrecorded ex parte communication. The judgment is affirmed by the court.