Archie Glenn Crawford v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00189-CR, 10-24-00190-CR

Archie Glenn Crawford,
Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,
Appellee

On appeal from the
220th District Court of Bosque County, Texas
Judge Shaun D. Carpenter, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. CR15943, CR15942

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In his sole issue on appeal, Archie Glenn Crawford contends that he is

entitled to a new punishment hearing in each of these cases because the trial

court violated his substantial rights when it failed to have a presentence

investigation report (“PSI”) prepared prior to sentencing. We affirm.
BACKGROUND

Crawford entered open pleas of guilty to two counts of the second-degree

felony offense of delivery of a controlled substance in an amount of one gram

or more but less than four grams. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §

481.112(c). Each offense was based on his delivery of methamphetamine to a

confidential informant. The trial court accepted Crawford’s guilty pleas, and

before proceeding to the punishment phase, the following exchange occurred:

[Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, previously in these matters the
Court ordered a presentence investigation prepared. And I
understand that there was some confusion as to the date that Mr.
Crawford was to appear for that interview. He has indicated to me
that he would like to have a presentence report completed prior to
the sentencing, and we would ask by oral motion for a continuance,
that sentence be continued to the 29th.

[The Court]: State?

[The State]: Your Honor, [Defense Counsel] had made me aware
last week of this certain situation, I guess. I am still not aware of
the situation as to why the PSI was not completed, so we would
just leave that to the discretion of the Court. Obviously, the State
is ready to proceed; however, I also think that PSIs are helpful,
regardless [of] whether the Court ultimately grants his requests
and puts him on probation; but nonetheless, the State is ready to
proceed and will defer to the Court.

[The Court]: Continuance is denied.

The State called one witness at the sentencing hearing, an investigator

with the Bosque County Sheriff’s Office who testified about each of Crawford’s

Archie Glenn Crawford v. The State of Texas Page 2
methamphetamine deliveries to the confidential informant. Crawford testified

on his own behalf. During closing arguments, the State requested a fifteen-

year prison sentence while Crawford requested probation with outpatient drug

rehabilitation treatment. The trial court sentenced Crawford to sixteen years

in prison in each case, to run concurrently.

RELEVANT LAW

When a sentence is to be determined by a judge, article 42A.252 of the

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to “direct a

supervision officer to prepare a presentence report” prior to sentencing, subject

to certain exceptions that are inapplicable here. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 42A.252(a), (c). The failure to order a PSI is non-constitutional error

subject to the harmless error provisions of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

44.2(b). See Whitelaw v. State, 29 S.W.3d 129, 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000);

Scarborough v. State, 54 S.W.3d 419, 425-26 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. ref’d);

TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b) (“Any other error, defect, irregularity, or variance that

does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.”). An error affects

substantial rights if it “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in

determining the [court's] verdict.” Scarborough, 54 S.W.3d at 426 (internal

citations omitted). In assessing how a purported error impacted the trial

court's punishment decision, reviewing courts consider “the entire record, the

Archie Glenn Crawford v. The State of Texas Page 3
nature of the evidence supporting the punishment decision, the character of

the error, and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in

the case.” Yarbrough v. State, 57 S.W.3d 611, 619 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2001, pet. ref'd).

ANALYSIS

Crawford asserts that the trial court violated his substantial rights by

failing to have a PSI report prepared despite his request. The State agrees

that the trial court erred, but argues that the error was harmless. Assuming

without deciding that the trial court erred by failing to have a PSI prepared,

we conclude that the error, if any, was harmless. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 42A.252; TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b).

A PSI report “informs the trial court’s sentencing discretion” by

providing the information listed in article 42A.253 of the Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure.1 Scarborough, 54 S.W.3d at 426; see TEX. CODE CRIM.

1 A PSI report includes the following information:

(1) the circumstances of the offense with which the defendant is charged;

(2) the amount of restitution necessary to adequately compensate a victim of the offense;

(3) the criminal and social history of the defendant;

(4) a proposed supervision plan describing programs and sanctions that the community
supervision and corrections department will provide the defendant if the judge
suspends the imposition of the sentence or grants deferred adjudication community
supervision;

(5) if the defendant is charged with a state jail felony, recommendations for conditions
of community supervision that the community supervision and corrections department

Archie Glenn Crawford v. The State of Texas Page 4
PROC. ANN. art. 42A.253(a). Crawford argues that he was harmed because the

trial court was unable to consider the social history, health status information,

educational and psychological testing, and proposed supervision plan that

would have been included in a PSI. Crawford also claims he was

disadvantaged by the absence of an evaluation to determine the

appropriateness of drug or alcohol rehabilitation. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 42A.257. As support for his claim of harm, Crawford points out that

the trial court assessed a sentence on the higher end of the punishment range

that was greater than the sentence requested by the State.

“The fact that the defendant had a full punishment hearing may well

impact whether the error [in failing to prepare a PSI] was harmless[.]”

considers advisable or appropriate based on the circumstances of the offense and other
factors addressed in the report;

(6) the results of a psychological evaluation of the defendant that determines, at a
minimum, the defendant's IQ and adaptive behavior score if the defendant:
(A) is convicted of a felony offense; and
(B) appears to the judge, through the judge's own observation or on the
suggestion of a party, to have a mental impairment;

(7) information regarding whether the defendant is a current or former member of the
state military forces or whether the defendant currently serves or has previously
served in the armed forces of the United States in an active-duty status and, if
available, a copy of the defendant's military discharge papers and military records;

(8) if the defendant has served in the armed forces of the United States in an active-
duty status, a determination as to whether the defendant was deployed to a combat
zone and whether the defendant may suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder or a
traumatic brain injury; and

(9) any other information relating to the defendant or the offense as requested by the
judge.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42A.253(a).

Archie Glenn Crawford v. The State of Texas Page 5
Whitelaw, 29 S.W.3d at 132. We find this to be true of Crawford’s cases. Much

of the information that would have been included in a formal PSI report was

addressed by testimony at the sentencing hearing. “In other words, if the

record testimony was insufficient to convince the trial judge to grant

[community supervision], the information included in the standard PSI was

unlikely to have made a difference.” Davidson v. State, No. 10-19-00149-CR,

2021 WL 3191971, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco July 28, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication).

The trial court heard evidence that Crawford was dealing

methamphetamine to the confidential informant in the underlying cases to

support his own drug habit, which spanned approximately thirty years.

Crawford described first using marijuana at the age of twelve, which

progressed to cocaine, methamphetamine, and alcohol abuse. He described his

methamphetamine use as “pretty heavy” and “steady,” only interrupted by his

periods of incarceration, with his high tolerance level requiring daily usage

between one and four grams per day.

Crawford discussed his criminal history, which was comprised of

multiple methamphetamine-related arrests and convictions. He testified that

he successfully completed one term of felony probation as a young adult,

though he admittedly continued to struggle with his drug addiction and had a

Archie Glenn Crawford v. The State of Texas Page 6
few “slip-ups along the way.” After completing probation, Crawford reported

that he served prison sentences in New Mexico and Texas, most recently

including two consecutive twenty-four-month state jail sentences for

possession of a controlled substance. According to Crawford, he started

delivering drugs when he was released from state jail in 2019.

Regarding his social history, Crawford testified that he was a high school

graduate and that he had obtained an associate’s degree in electrical

engineering while incarcerated in New Mexico. Crawford also explained that

he recently obtained a full-time position with a fabrication company, which he

hoped would allow him to financially support his five children. Crawford was

also given the opportunity to discuss “anything that we haven’t talked about

that you think the judge should know before he decides what would be an

appropriate punishment for you in these cases[.]” He took the opportunity to

explain that he completed the initial PSI paperwork for the probation

department, but the probation department never contacted him to complete

the PSI report process.

Though an evaluation was not performed to determine the

appropriateness of drug treatment pursuant to article 42A.257, the record

reflects that the parties and the trial court considered the appropriateness and

availability of various drug treatment programs. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

Archie Glenn Crawford v. The State of Texas Page 7
ANN. art. 42A.257. Crawford acknowledged the need for a significant change

in his life and testified that he was willing to participate in an outpatient

rehabilitation program. He explained that he had never been offered drug

rehabilitation services in any of his criminal cases, though he admittedly never

voluntarily sought treatment on his own. Crawford also asked that the trial

court not require completion of the SAFP inpatient treatment program as a

condition of probation so that he could continue his current employment. See

id. at art. 42A.303; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 493.009. In requesting a prison

sentence during closing argument, the State noted the availability of beneficial

drug treatment programs in the penitentiary. The record also reflects that the

trial court considered Crawford’s need for drug rehabilitation treatment and

the availability of drug rehabilitation programs in the penitentiary when

pronouncing his sentence by ordering Crawford to participate in “the

prerelease substance abuse program, a prerelease therapeutic community, and

the in-prison substance abuse treatment program” while incarcerated.

We have considered the entire record, the nature of the evidence

supporting the punishment decision, the character of the alleged error, and

how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case. We

conclude that the trial court's error, if any, in sentencing Crawford without a

Archie Glenn Crawford v. The State of Texas Page 8
completed PSI report is harmless. We overrule Crawford’s sole issue on

appeal.

Conclusion

Having overruled Crawford’s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the trial

court’s judgments in each case.

STEVE SMITH
Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: August 21, 2025
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
Do not publish
CR25

Archie Glenn Crawford v. The State of Texas Page 9