No. 14-08-00244-CR
Opinion filed April 14, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1154231.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices YATES and FROST.
ADELE HEDGES, Chief Justice.
Appellant, Matthew Joseph Collazo, appeals from his conviction for bail jumping and failure to appear. A jury found appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at eight years imprisonment. In two issues, appellant contends that in sustaining the State's objections during appellant's testimony, the trial court prevented appellant from presenting a defense in violation of his constitutional right to do so. We affirm.
Discussion
Appellant acknowledges that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to establish the elements of the offense, i.e., that appellant intentionally or knowingly failed to appear in court in accordance with the terms of his release from custody; however, appellant contends that the trial court erred in excluding evidence supporting a defense to the charged offense. See Tex. Penal Code § 38.10(a)-(c) (listing elements and defenses for the offense of bail jumping and failure to appear). Specifically, appellant contends that although he had a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear, the trial court did not permit him to testify in support of that defense over the State's objections. See id. § 38.10(c). Moreover, appellant contends that the trial court's refusal to allow testimony regarding his defense violated his right to present a defense under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, citing Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 51 (1987), Washington v. State, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967), and Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 664-65 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). The record reveals, however, that at no point did appellant raise this issue in the trial court. Generally, to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely and sufficiently specific request, objection, or motion on that basis and obtain a ruling thereon or object to the court's refusal to rule. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(b); Johnson v. State, 183 S.W.3d 515, 519 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. dism'd). This is true even when the issue on appeal asserts denial of the right to present a defense. See Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Consequently, appellant failed to preserve his constitutional argument by making it in the trial court. It is unclear whether appellant is also complaining that the trial court committed reversible error simply by sustaining the State's two relevancy objections during appellant's testimony. Nonetheless, we will consider the question in the interest of justice. The first objection came after defense counsel asked appellant if there was any other reason as to why he failed to make the court appearance at issue in the case, and appellant answered "[w]ell, because I had full custody of my son and — ." The second sustained objection came when defense counsel again asked whether there was any other reason why appellant failed to appear, and appellant stated that he had "a medical condition." The mere fact of being a single parent or having a medical condition does not provide a reasonable excuse for avoiding a court appearance. "Excuse" is defined as "[a] reason that justifies an act or omission or that relieves a person of a duty." Black's Law Dictionary 588 (7th ed. 1999). Not every purported reason given by a defendant constitutes an excuse under the law; a reason that is not tied to the failure to appear does not constitute an excuse. See Luce v. State, 101 S.W.3d 692, 694-95 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.). A reasonable excuse could possibly be related to one of the purported facts appellant raised, but without more, a claim of parenthood or illness does not constitute a reasonable excuse. Appellant has offered no explanation in the trial court or on appeal as to how parenthood or a purported illness kept him from appearing in court as he was obligated to do. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in sustaining the two relevancy objections, and we overrule appellant's two issues. We affirm the trial court's judgment.