Case Summary - Danny Wayne Grammer v. State

Danny Wayne Grammer took a plea bargain for ten years deferred adjudication on a nine-count indictment charging him with aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child. Grammer later violated the conditions of his probation by failing to pay his court costs within 120 days and failing to avoid associating with persons having criminal records and having disreputable or harmful character. The trial court found Grammer had violated the conditions and sentenced him to sixty years on the aggravated sexual assaults and twenty years on the indecency. Grammer complained on appeal that he never received a separate punishment hearing after adjudication. While he presented mitigation evidence regarding the probation violations, he did not present "punishment" evidence to mitigate the underlying offenses. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court had not prevented him from putting on punishment evidence.

The CCA affirmed as well. Judge Hervey, writing for a seven-judge majority, essentially reproduced a huge chunk of the reporter's record to explain that Grammer had been given the opportunity to present punishment evidence and he never objected to the lack of a separate hearing on punishment. For example, he presented extensive evidence that he did not know his probation forbade him from hooking up with a girl he met in jail. He told his probation officer he wanted to date a girl that had a bad check charge (when in actuality it was more like possession of a fraudulent instrument and fraudulent use or possession of identifying information) and the probation officer said that was okay. When the probation officer found out that Grammer was living with this felonious woman, he told Grammer that he couldn't live with her unless they were married. Grammer announced his intention to make an honest woman of his girlfriend by marrying her in September (when his divorce would be final), but the probation officer arrested him for probation violations in August.

Judges Price and Holcomb concurred without opinions. Here's a link to the CCA case info. Here's a link to the court of appeals case info. Here's a link to my post when the CCA granted discretionary review. Here's a link to the oral argument.

[So, are they saying that presenting evidence to mitigate the violations is all the defendant is really entitled to do? Or are they saying that he might have been entitled to present mitigation on the adjudicated offenses, but he failed to do so?]