Hardeman v. State

holding that the right to a separate punishment hearing after adjudication of guilt is forfeitable | holding that Issa requires only that the defendant have the opportunity to present evidence in mitigation of punishment if not afforded same during adjudication | concluding that defendant failed to preserve error when he was given opportunity to object when sentence was pronounced but did not | holding that Issa requires only that the defendant have the opportunity to present evidence in mitigation of punishment if not afforded same during adjudication | holding that Issa requires only that the defendant have the opportunity to present evidence in mitigation of punishment if not afforded same during adjudication | holding that defendant does not have absolute right to separate punishment hearing but must have opportunity to present mitigating evidence if that right was not afforded during adjudication | holding that defendant does not have absolute right to separate punishment hearing but must have opportunity to present mitigating evidence if that right was not afforded during adjudication | holding that defendant does not have absolute right to separate punishment hearing but must have opportunity to present mitigating evidence if that right was not afforded during adjudication | holding that defendant does not have absolute right to separate punishment hearing but must have opportunity to present mitigating evidence if that right was not afforded during adjudication | holding that appellant must have opportunity to present evidence of mitigation, but it is “immaterial that the presentation of the evidence [of mitigation] occurred before the actual words of adjudication.” | holding that defendant does not have absolute right to a separate punishment hearing but must have opportunity to present mitigating evidence if that right was not afforded during the adjudication | holding that defendant does not have absolute right to a separate punishment hearing but must have opportunity to present mitigating evidence if that right was not afforded during the adjudication | holding that motion for a new trial can be used to raise point of error for first time only when party did not have opportunity to object at time objectionable action was taken | concluding that appellant had opportunity to object and present evidence, but did not do so, when asked, after being adjudged guilty, whether he had anything to say before pronouncement of sentence and he did not respond | reasoning that appellant did not allege that he did not have an opportunity to object when sentence was pronounced and so failed to preserve error | noting that if opportunity to object was afforded appellant and he failed to object, he cannot use later motion for new trial to preserve error | noting that if opportunity to object was afforded appellant and he failed to object, he cannot use later motion for new trial to preserve error | holding appellant failed to preserve error where given an opportunity to object after guilt was adjudicated and before judge pronounced the sentence | noting that if opportunity to object was afforded appellant and he failed to object, he cannot use a later motion for new trial to preserve the error | noting that if opportunity to object was afforded appellant and he failed to object, he cannot use a later motion for new trial to preserve the error | explaining that defendant must have opportunity to present evidence during adjudication proceeding but that “it is immaterial that the presentation of this evidence occurred before the actual words of adjudication” | finding that defendant has no absolute right to separate punishment hearing, but instead must have opportunity to present evidence in mitigation of punishment if such opportunity was not afforded during adjudication | stating that Issa does not require a separate sentencing hearing after a defendant's guilt has been adjudicated if the defendant was provided an opportunity during