IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00420-CR

No. 10-13-00122-CR

No. 10-13-00123-CR

No. 10-13-00124-CR

JUAN MANUAL GONZALES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2011-2074-C1, 

2011-2460-C1, 2012-534-C1 and 2012-541-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In Cause No. 10-12-00420-CR, Juan Manuel Gonzales pleaded guilty to the 

offense of delivery of a controlled substance. In Cause Nos. 10-13-00122-CR, 10-13-

00123-CR, and 10-13-00124-CR, Gonzales also pleaded guilty to the offense of delivery 

of a controlled substance. Gonzales pleaded true to the enhancement and habitual 
Gonzales v. State Page 2

allegations, and in each cause number, the jury assessed punishment at 99 years 

confinement. We affirm.

Background Facts

Officer Scott Vaughn, with the Waco Police Department, testified that he worked 

in an undercover capacity in the Drug Enforcement Unit. Vaughn met with Gonzales 

on four occasions and purchased methamphetamine. During one of the purchases, 

Gonzales introduced Officer Vaughn to Marcus Bautista and told Officer Vaughn that 

he would be dealing with Bautista for a while. Officer Vaughn would still contact 

Gonzales, but would meet Bautista for the purchase.

Jury Deliberation

Gonzales brings two issues in each cause number. Gonzales first argues that the 

trial court impermissibly restricted the jury to consider either a 99 year sentence or life 

imprisonment. The jury initially returned a verdict of “99 years or life” on each of the 

four verdict forms. The trial court instructed the jury to return to the jury room and 

correct the verdict to indicate either 99 years or life on each verdict page. The jury 

returned a verdict of 99 years.

Gonzales did not object to the trial court’s instructions to the jury and has waived 

any error. TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1. Moreover, the jury’s initial verdict indicated that they 

narrowed the decision to either 99 years or life. Gonzales has not shown that he was 

harmed by the trial court’s instruction to select only one of those options. See

TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2 (b). We overrule the first issue.
Gonzales v. State Page 3

Exclusion of Evidence

In the second issue, Gonzales argues that the trial court erred in excluding 

evidence of the length of Marcus Bautista’s sentence. Gonzales attempted to offer 

evidence of Bautista’s sentence for delivery of methamphetamine to Officer Vaughn. 

The trial court excluded the evidence finding that it would be “confusing to the jury” to 

hear the length of sentence of another individual “who may have greatly different 

circumstances.”

We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of 

discretion. McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “Under an 

abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court should not disturb the trial court's 

decision if the ruling was within the zone of reasonable disagreement.” Bigon v. State,

252 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Gonzales cites Article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that allows 

the State or defense to offer evidence at punishment “as to any matter that the court 

deems relevant to sentencing.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 37.07, § 3 (a) (1) (West 

Supp. 2013). Gonzales contends that the length of Bautista’s sentence was relevant 

mitigating evidence. In a capital murder case in which the defendant received the death 

penalty, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that evidence of a co-defendant’s 

conviction and punishment is not included among the mitigating circumstances that a 

defendant has a right to present. Joubert v. State, 235 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2007). We do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence 

of Bautista’s sentence. We overrule the second issue.
Gonzales v. State Page 4

Conclusion

The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed June 5, 2014

Do not publish 

[CR PM]