Opinion
02-23-00146-CR
03-28-2024
Brandon Jesse Rodriguez, Appellant v. The State of Texas
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 485th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1655970
Before Bassel, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dabney Bassel, Justice
I. Introduction
Appellant Brandon Jesse Rodriguez raises one point on appeal, arguing that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him when it considered a presentence investigation report (PSI) at punishment. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
II. Background
Rodriguez pleaded guilty-without the benefit of a plea bargain-to the offense of continuous violence against family. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 25.11. The case was continued for preparation of the PSI. At the sentencing hearing, the PSI was referenced at least six times. At no point did Rodriguez object. The trial court sentenced Rodriguez to six years' confinement. Rodriguez then perfected this appeal.
III. Discussion
In his sole point, Rodriguez contends that his right to confront the witnesses against him was violated when the trial court considered the PSI at punishment. Rodriquez, however, failed to preserve his complaint. Even if he had preserved it, it has no merit.
To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion sufficiently stating the specific grounds, if not apparent from the context, for the desired ruling. Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1); Montelongo v. State, 623 S.W.3d 819, 822 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Before this appeal, Rodriguez raised no objection, much less a Confrontation Clause objection, to the PSI and admits as much.
Rodriguez asserts that preservation was unnecessary because the law is so well-settled that an objection would have been futile. See Ex parte Hathorn, 296 S.W.3d 570, 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). We have previously expressed reservations about that precise argument. See Reveron v. State, Nos. 02-23-00041-CR, 02-23-00042-CR, 2023 WL 8467385, at *3 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Dec. 7, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Sell v. State, 488 S.W.3d 397, 398-99 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 2016, pet. ref'd)).
In any event, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that "when a PSI is used in a non-capital case in which the defendant has elected to have the judge determine sentencing, Crawford does not apply"; thus, there is no violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Stringer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 42, 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). "That is precisely what occurred in this case ...." Reveron, 2023 WL 8467385, at *3 (quoting Sell, 488 S.W.3d at 399).
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004).
Accordingly, we overrule Rodriguez's sole point.
IV. Conclusion
Having overruled Rodriquez's sole point, we affirm the trial court's judgment.