C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
MI GUEL DEL GADO, Ap pe lla nt,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 05 -0 03 91 -C R

Appea l from the 243rd Judi cial District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 20030D05472)

O P I N I O N Appellant wa s found guilty by a jury of two counts of inde cenc y with a child and one count of a g g ravated sexual assault of a c hild. During punishment deliberations, the jury
re qu e ste d to a djo ur

n f or the da y and re sume de lib e ratio ns the ne xt day to g ive the m ampl e tim e to c on sid e r a ll the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d d ur ingthe punis hme nt p ha se . D e fe ns e c ouns e l mo ve d to have the jur

y se qu e ste re d. Th e tr ia l ju dg e ov e rr ule d th e mot ion , a

nd pe rm itt e d th e jur

y to
se pa rate fo r t he night. Appellant wa s sentence d to 10 y ear s’ community supervision for the indece ncy with a child counts and 20 y ear s’ in prison for the a g g ravated sexual assault, with the sentence s to run
c on c ur re ntl y . App e lla

nt c on te sts the tr ia l c ourt ’s de c isi on in d e nyingde fe ns e c ouns e l’ s mo tio n to
se qu e ste r. We a ff

ir m. Ap pe lla nt’ s so le iss ue on

a pp e a l is wh e the r t

he c ourt e rr e d b y a llo wi ngthe jur

y to
se pa rate ov e r d e fe ns e c ouns e l’ s mo tio n. Ar tic le 35 .2 3 s tate s: The c ourt may

adjourn ve niremen to a

ny day of the ter m. When jurors-2-

have be en sworn in a

felony case , the cour

t may , at its discretion, permit the jurors to separate until the court has g iven its charg e to the jury . The c ourt on its own m o t i o nm ay

an d o nth e m o t i o no f e i th er

p arty s h al l , af t er h av i n g gi v en i t s ch ar ge to t he jur y , o rd e r t hat th e jur

y no t be a llo we d to se pa

ra te , a ft e r whic h th e jur

y sh a ll be kept tog ether , and not per mitted to separate except to the extent of housing fema le jurors sepa

rate and apa

rt from male jurors, until a verdic t has bee n rende red or

the jury finally discharg ed. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 35.23 (V ernon 2006) . The de fenda nt must either timely

file a motion to s equeste r or timely object to a r equest to sepa rate to preser

ve for appea l a complaint that the trial cour

t deprived the defe ndant of the r ight to have the jury sequester ed. Sanchez v

. Sta te , 906 S.W .2d 176, 178 (Tex.App--F ort Worth 1995, pet. ref’ d). A timely reque st is one made at the ear liest possibl e opportunity
. Id . at 178, c iti ng Gr e gg v . S tate , 881 S.W .2d 946, 950 (T e x.Ap p. -- Cor

pu s Chri sti 19 94 , p e t. r e f’ d) ; Ho od v . S tate , 828 S.W .2d 87, 91-6 (Te x .App.-- Austin 1992, no pet.). He re , th e de fe ns e c ouns e l mo ve d to se qu e ste r t he jur y imm e diate ly

a ft e r t he re qu e st t o separ ate f or the da y was made . I t was the fir st tim e the se paration issue arose at trial. We find the motion to sequester wa s timely made. Ha

ving ma de a timely

motion to s equeste r the jury afte r the c harg e wa s g iven to the jury , the trial cour t was re quired to g rant the motion. See T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 35.23. We hold the trial cour t erre d in failing to gr ant the
m o t i o nt o s e qu e s t e r

th e j ur y. The e rror in failing to sequester

a jury is a violation of a statute not a c onstitut ional mandate. Cam

pb e ll v . S tate , 189 S.W .3d 822, 826 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Appellant ar g ues that the e rror is rever sible, but cites to case s that applied for mer Te x as Rule of Appellate Proc edure 81(b)( 2). Rule 44.2, which r eplac ed Rule 81(b) (2) in 1997, has two ha rm standards: one for c onstitut ional err ors and one for other err ors. Se e Cam

pb e ll , 189 S.W .3d at-3-

82 6; T EX .R.A PP .P. 44 .2 . V iol a tin g a statut or y mand a te to s e qu e ste r a

jur y is g ov e rn e d b y

Rul e 44.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e. Cam pb e ll , 189 S.W .3d at 826, citing Rojas v. Sta te , 9 86 S.W. 2d

24 1, 25 2 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 )( Ke lle r, J., c on c ur ri ng ). Any

e rr or , d e fe c t, ir re g ula ri ty , o r v ari anc e , o the r t

ha n c on sti tut ion a l e rr or , th a t do e s n ot a ff e c t su bs tanti a l r ig hts must be disreg arde d. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 44.2(b). The re cord shows the trial judg e stated to the jury that he “must emphatically remind” them about the instructions not to discuss the case with any one or listen to any comment or re ad any repor t about the ca se. Ther e is nothing in the r ecor d showing the jury did not follow the instructions or of any

other ha rm occ urringfrom allowingthe jurors to sepa rate . The trial c ourt’s
err or in allowingthe jury

to separate duringdeliberations did not aff ect a substantial rig ht and was ha rmless err or. Se e Cam

pb e ll , 189 S.W .3d 826, citing Rojas , 986 S.W .2d at 252 (Ke ller, J.,
c on c ur ri ng ); se e als o T EX .R.A PP .P. 44.2(b). Appellant’ s sole issue is overrule d. Ha vin g ov e rr

ule d App e lla

nt’ s so le iss ue , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt .

J une 12, 2008 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ. (Do Not Publish)