Opinion
No. 05-06-01628-CR
Opinion Filed March 21, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 416-80127-06.
Before Justices MORRIS, WRIGHT, and MOSELEY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Matthew Paul Redden appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. After appellant entered a guilty plea without an agreement regarding punishment, the trial court assessed punishment at 23 years' confinement and a $5000 fine. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court violated his right to due process by denying his motion for appointment of an expert witness. We overrule appellant's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must present a timely request, objection, or motion to the trial court stating the specific grounds for the desired ruling if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). All the party must do to avoid the forfeiture of a complaint on appeal is to let the trial court know what he wants, why he thinks himself entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the trial court to understand him at a time when the trial court is in a proper position to do something about it. Keeter v. State, 175 S.W.3d 756, 760 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (citing Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). It is well-established that almost every right, constitutional and statutory, may be waived by failing to object. Benson v. State, 224 S.W.3d 485, 498 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). In particular, an appellant may waive a due process claim by failing to object. See, e.g., Wilson v. State, 7 S.W.3d 136, 146 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (tardy disclosure of exculpatory material); Brown v. State, 163 S.W.3d 818, 822 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. ref'd) (pre-indictment delay); Benson, 224 S.W.3d at 498 (cruel and unusual punishment claim). In this case, appellant filed a motion for appointment of an expert witness stating that for the prosecutor to consider a plea recommendation of deferred adjudication he must submit to a sex offender evaluation. Appellant requested the trial court appoint Dr. Tim Brannamon to perform the assessment. The trial court did not appoint Brannamon nor did the trial court expressly rule on the motion. However, Jennifer Edwards did perform a sex offender evaluation on appellant and testified at trial. Appellant did not object to Edwards's testimony at trial. Thereafter, at a hearing on defense counsel's motion to withdraw, counsel testified that she originally objected to Edwards as the expert "but acquiesced . . because [she] knew that was the only way we had a shot at deferred adjudication." She also acknowledged that "conversation and the hearing was not on the record." Under these circumstances, we conclude appellant failed to preserve error for our review. See Giron v. State, 19 S.W.3d 572, 576 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000, pet. ref'd) ("Appellant waived any appellate complaint that trial court erred in failing to provide him with an Ake/DeFreece defense psychiatric expert by failing to object at trial."). We overrule appellant's sole issue. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.