eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2010-09

Monica Sasha Jones v. State ( 2010 )


Menu:
 
  •                                NO. 07-10-0158-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
SEPTEMBER 2, 2010
______________________________
MONICA SASHA JONES,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_______________________________
FROM THE 66[TH] DISTRICT COURT OF HILL COUNTY;
NO.  32,549; HON. F.B. (BOB) MCGREGOR, JR., PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant Monica Sasha Jones appeals the judgment adjudicating her guilty of endangering a child.  Through a single issue, she contends that she was denied due process when the trial court "re-reviewed the original presentence investigation report."  We affirm.
Issue  -  Due Process
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion and denied her due process when it reviewed a presentence investigation report (at the adjudication hearing) that was prepared five years earlier instead of ordering a new one.  The record does not disclose where that objection or concern was contemporaneously brought to the attention of the trial court, however, and this is problematic.
To preserve a complaint for appellate review, the complainant must object to the purported error.  Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Saldano v. State,
    70 S.W.3d 873
    , 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (holding that failure to make an objection may waive constitutional error); Nunez v. State,
    117 S.W.3d 309
    , 319 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (holding that the failure to timely and specifically object at trial may waive even constitutional rights).  Furthermore, the objection must be made as soon as the ground for same becomes apparent.  House v. State,
    909 S.W.2d 214
    , 216 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1995), aff'd,
    947 S.W.2d 251 
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).  Appellant did not comply with these directives here.  The trial court expressly informed the litigants of its intent to "re-review the presentence investigation" report.  No objection was made by appellant.  So, she failed to preserve the purported error.  See Summers v. State,
    942 S.W.2d 695
    , 696-97 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.) (holding that the appellant waived objection to the failure to order a PSI because the objection was not raised below).
Accordingly, we overrule her issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.