Monica Sasha Jones v. State ( 2010 )

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 66TH 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). 1
1
To the extent that appellant’s issue could also encompass the notion that she was denied
opportunity to present evidence on punishment, we again note that no one raised that particular ground
below. Thus, it too was waived. See Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.–Waco 2005, pet.
dism’d).
2
Accordingly, we overrule her issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
3