Eric Martin Segrest Jr. v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00015-CR
__________________

ERIC MARTIN SEGREST JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. E113918
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Eric Martin Segrest Jr. (“Appellant” or “Segrest”) was charged by

information for the offense of assault-family violence, a class A misdemeanor, for

“intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury to [P.M.,] a person

with whom the defendant has or has had a dating relationship” by hitting her in the

head with his hand. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b). Segrest pleaded

not guilty, but a jury found him guilty as charged in the information. Segrest elected

for the trial court to assess punishment.

1
At the punishment hearing, Segrest failed to appear, and his attorney advised

the trial court that Segrest had “checked himself into Southeast Texas Medical

Center where he is under watch at this time[]” for alleged mental health reasons.

After hearing evidence on punishment, the trial court assessed punishment at one

year in the Orange County Jail and assessed a fine of $4,000. In the Judgment and

Sentence, the trial court wrote, in relevant part,

On August 22, 2023, the Court convened for the punishment
phase of the trial. The attorneys appeared but the Defendant did not
appear for the punishment phase. The Court found that the Defendant
was voluntarily absent from the hearing, and proceeded with the
hearing on the issue of punishment despite his absence[].
...
[] 15 minutes before the punishment hearing scheduled for 9:00
a.m. on August 22, a representative from the Defendant’s bonding
company told the Court that he heard that the Defendant suffered a
“panic attack” during the evening of August 21 and was taken to a
mental health facility. When the attorney for the Defendant told the
Court that he was given the same information by the complaining
witness, the Court advised that either (1) such information was not true
or, (2) if it was true, that the Defendant had himself checked into a
facility to avoid court proceedings. The Court noted that he did not
believe much of what the Defendant or the complaining witness had to
say during the trial yesterday and that the jury’s quick (one hour)
verdict reflected that they did not believe them as well. At 9:07 a.m.,
the Court forfeited the Defendant’s bond and went forward with the
punishment phase without the Defendant.

On December 6, 2023, Segrest filed a Motion for New Trial and Motion to

Modify Sentence. In his Motion, Segrest asked for a new trial, arguing he was not

present for sentencing and he wanted to “explain to the court why h[e] was not at the

sentencing and ask for a reduction in the sentencing or a new sentence[.]” On
2
December 8, 2023, Segrest filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Motion for New

Trial that repeated the arguments in his Motion for New Trial.

The trial court held a hearing on the Motion for New Trial on December 11,

2023. The State objected to the hearing, arguing that Segrest’s Motion was untimely

because he failed to file his Motion for New Trial within thirty days of sentencing.

The trial court overruled the State’s objection.

In the hearing, Segrest told the trial court that, after the jury found him guilty,

he took his “whole 30-day prescription[]” of medication, he went to a bridge thinking

he would “jump off and kill [him]self[,]” then he went to the emergency room, and

he was admitted to “the behavioral center.” Segrest testified that he was in the

hospital for “a few hours.” According to Segrest, upon release, he was picked up by

the police for this case and taken to the Jefferson County Jail, where he stayed for

about two weeks, when he was transferred to Orange County. When defense counsel

questioned Segrest, the following exchange occurred:

[Defense counsel]: Do you understand how the Court - - you know, do
you understand that by you voluntarily taking those pills and
voluntarily going to the bridge, that [your] failure to attend was based
on voluntary actions?

[Segrest]: Yes, absolutely.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court told Segrest that, by law,

Segrest did not have to be present for sentencing, and the trial court denied the

Motion for New Trial. Segrest filed a Notice of Appeal on December 28, 2023. The
3
trial court certified Segrest’s right to appeal on January 10, 2024, on which the trial

court noted, “Defendant failed to appear for SENTENCING on 8-22-2023.” This

Court received Segrest’s Notice of Appeal on January 10, 2024.

On January 19, 2024, this Court sent a letter to the parties stating that the

notice of appeal was filed outside the time for which an extension of time may be

granted, explaining that the appeal would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless

grounds were shown for continuing the appeal, and inviting the parties to file a

response. In Appellant’s response, he argued that the trial court did not pronounce

his sentence until December 11, 2023, and that it is the oral pronouncement of

sentence that sets the time for filing an appeal and his notice of appeal was timely.

The State responded and argued that Segrest’s appeal was untimely because the time

to file a notice of appeal starts when the sentence was imposed and pronounced,

which occurred both orally and in writing on August 22, 2023. Thereafter, the parties

filed their merits briefs, and in a single issue, Appellant argues that the trial court

erred when it allowed the State to play part of a video to refresh Segrest’s memory

in the jury’s presence. In response, the State argues that Segrest failed to preserve

error on his point of error.

Generally, a defendant’s sentence must be pronounced orally in his presence.

See Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (citing Tex. Code

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03, § 1(a); Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tex.

4
Crim. App. 2002). However, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that

“[i]n a misdemeanor case, the judgment and sentence may be rendered in the absence

of the defendant.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.14(a). Segrest was convicted

of assault-family violence, which is a class A misdemeanor. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b). 1 Under article 42.14(a), the trial court did not have to

pronounce the sentence in Segrest’s presence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.

42.14(a); see also State v. Leroy, No. 05-04-00260-CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS

1294, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 17, 2005, pet. ref’d) (not designated for

publication) (“Sentence in a misdemeanor case [] may be rendered in the defendant’s

absence.”).

Further, a trial court has the authority to proceed with punishment when a

defendant is absent voluntarily. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 33.03;

Papakostas v. State, 145 S.W.3d 723, 724-25 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

Edinburg, 2004, no pet.). Here, the trial court made a finding that Segrest was

voluntarily absent from the punishment hearing and sentencing. We defer to the trial

court’s determination of voluntariness where there is no contrary evidence. See Baul

v. State, No. 09-23-00106-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1265, at *9 (Tex. App.—

1
A first conviction for assault-family violence is treated like an ordinary
bodily-injury assault as a class A misdemeanor, and any subsequent family-violence
assault can be punished as a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 22.01(b)(2)(A). This was Segrest’s first conviction for assault.
5
Beaumont Feb. 21, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see

also Simon v. State, 554 S.W.3d 257, 265-66 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2018, no pet.) (“[A]n appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s finding that a

defendant voluntarily absented himself from the trial court proceedings when the

defendant fails to put on any evidence to refute that determination.”).

When a defendant appeals from a conviction in a criminal case, the time to

file a notice of appeal runs from the date sentence is imposed in open court. See Tex.

R. App. P. 26.2(a). The record reflects that the trial court pronounced Segrest’s

sentence both orally and in writing on August 22, 2023. Segrest did not file his notice

of appeal nor his motion for new trial within thirty days after the date on which the

trial court imposed his sentence. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4, 26.2(a). “Timely filing of

a written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to hearing an appeal.”

Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). “If a notice of appeal

is not timely filed, the court of appeals has no option but to dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction.” Id. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on May 19, 2025
Opinion Delivered May 28, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.
6