### NUM BER 13-08- 463- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
ERIC SIM ON PEL A CH E, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 03rd D istrict Co urt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## D I S S E N T I N G OP I N I ON B ef o re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a

D is se n ti n g O p in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la I respect f ully

dissent

. Appe llant, Eric Simo n Pela che, argues in issues f iv e an d six that the t ri al cour

t’ s e nhanc ement of hi s p uni shmentfrom a sta te- jai l felony

to a s econd
degree f elon y

v iolate d his rig ht to due process. T he m ajority susta ined both issu es,
re vers e d th e tri a l co u rt ’s se n te n ce , an d re m a n d e d th e ca se f o r a n e w p u n ish m e n t h e a rin g,2

instructin g the trial court “to assess a pu nishm ent w ithou t re ga rd t o the two improp erly not iced en han cem ent allegations. ” See P ela che v. State , n o
. 1 3 -0 8 -0 0 4 6 3 -C R, 2 0 0 9 T e x. App . Lexus, at *9 (T ex. App .–Corp us Christi June 26, 200 9 no p et. h .). Becau se I w ould hold that Pelach e f ailed to preserve both issue s f or rev iew , I w ould ov errule bo th issue s. In hi s fifth a nd s ix th i ss ues, Pel ache ar g ued that the tri al cour t er re d i n appl y ing the puni shmentr ang e appl ic abl e to a sec ond- deg re e felony bec ause (1 ) the n oti ce to hi m that the S tate w as seek ing to enhanc e hi s s entenc e v iol ated his r ig ht t o due pr oces s, and ( 2) the p ro ces s o f enhanci ng hi s s entenc e v iol ated his ri g ht t o due pr oces s. Pel ache ra is ed nin e ar g uments i n s uppor t of hi s c ontent ion thathi s r ig ht t o due pr oces s w as v iol ated. Rule 33 .1 of

the T exas Rules of App ellate Proced ure g overns prese rv ation of error, and s tates , i n par

t: (a ) In G ener al. –As a pr er eq uisite to pr esent ing a c omplai nt for appel lat e re v iew , t he r ecor d mustsh ow that : (1 ) the c ompla in t was made t o the tr ial co urt by a t imel y r eq uest , obj ect ion , or

moti on th at: (A ) sta ted t he gr ounds f or the r uli ng thatthe compl ain ing par ty so ug ht f rom th e trial court w ith suf f icient spe cif icity t o ma ke the trial court aw ar e of the comp la in t, unl ess the spec ificg ro unds w er e appar ent from the cont ex t[. ] T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1. Thi s r ul e en c om pa s s es t he c on c ep t of “ pa rty r es po ns i bi l ity .” Rey

na v . St ate , 168 S.W .3d 173 , 176 (Te x . Crim. App

. 200 5). In ot her w ords, “[t]h e com plainin g party bears the r espon si bil it y

of cl ear ly

co nv ey ing to the t ri al jud g e the parti cul ar co mplai nt, inc lud ing the pre c ise and prope r applicatio n of the law as w ell as the u nde rly ing r ation ale.” Id . at 177. “ To av oid forfeit ing a c omplainton a ppeal , t he par ty must‘ letthe tr ial j udg e k now wha t h e w a n ts , why he th in ks he is e n ti tl e d to it, an d to do so cle a rly e n o u gh fo r th e ju d ge3

to un der sta nd him at a ti me w hen the jud g e is in the pr oper posi ti on to do s omethi ng about it.’” Pena v

. St ate , N o. PD- 1411- 07, 2009 W L 928594, at *8 (Tex . C ri m. App. Apr . 8, 2009) (qu o ti n g Lanks ton v

. St ate , 827 S.W .2d 9 07, 9 09 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1992) ). Thi s met hod g iv es the t ri al cour

t and the oppos ing party a c hance to cor re ct the e rr or
. Id . “W het her a par ty ’s par ti cul ar co mplai nt i s p re se rv ed depe nds on w hether the compl ain t on appeal compor ts w it h the co mplai nt made at t ri al. I n making this determi nati on, w e consi der the cont ex t i n w hic h the co mplai nt w as made and th e par ti es’ sh ar ed unde rs tandi ng at that time .” Id . (fo otn ote omitt ed). Her e, Pelac he did not objec t bef or e the tr ial co urt or ar g ue i n hi s mot ion for n ew tr ial that eit her

the noti ce to him that the S tate w as seek ing to enhanc e hi s s entenc e, or the pr oces s o f enhanc ing his sent ence v iol ated his r ig ht t o due pr oces s u nder ei ther st ate o r f ede ral constitu tiona l g roun ds. In th e con text in which Pe lache lodged his objection , he did not clearly

convey to the trial court “the precise a nd p rope r applicatio n of the law as w ell as the und erly ing r ation ale.” See P ena , 200 9 W L 92859 4, at*8. Thus , Pe lac he did not put t he tr ial cour

t on noti ce that itsh oul d c onsi der w hether enhanc ement of hi s p uni shment from a s tate-

jai l felony

to a second- deg re e f elo ny vi ola ted his rig ht to due pr oces s. N othi ng in the r ecor d s ug g est s tha t the tr ial co ur t w as aw ar e of Pel ache’ s a rg ument t hat enhanc ement of hi s p uni shmentfrom a sta te- jai l felony to a s econd -d eg re e felony v iol ated his rig ht to due pr oces s. Ther efore, Pel ache did not pr eser v e er ro r. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1; Pena , 2009 W L 928594, at *8; see a lso Al exand er v. Sta te , 137 S.W .3d 1 27, 1 30- 31 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 04, pet. ref ’d) (holding that f ailure to o bject to trial court abo ut vi olatio ns of f ede ral and state due proce ss w aived app ellate rev iew of those claims). Fund amental er ro r maybe r ais ed for the fir st tim e on appeal

. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 103( d) ( pr ov idi ng thatan appel lat e court maytake notic e of f undamental err or s a ff ect ingE x am pl es of ri gh t s t ha t a re w ai vab l e o nl y i nc l ud e t he ri gh t s t o t he as s i s t an c e o f co un s el an d t o a j ury 1 tri a l

. S a l d a n o v . S ta te , 70 S

. W

. 3d 87 3, 88 8 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 02 ).

E x am pl es of abso l ut e sy st em i c r equi r em ent s i ncl ude j ur i sdi ct i on o f t he p er son, j ur i sdi ct i on o f t he 2 s u b je c t m a tte r, a p e n a l s ta tu te ’ s b e i n g i n c o m p l i a n c e w i th th e S e p a ra ti o n o f P o w e rs s e c ti o n o f th e s ta te c o n s ti tu ti o n , a c o n s ti tu ti o n a l re q u i re m e n t t h a t a d i s tri c t c o u rt m u s t c o n d u c t i ts p ro c e e d i n g s a t th e c o u n ty s e a t, t he co nst i t ut i onal pr ohi bi t i on of ex post f act o l aws, and cer t ai n con st i t ut i onal r est r ai nt s on t he co m m ent s of a ju d g e
. Id

. at 888
- 89. 4 subst ant ial rig hts alth ough the e rrors w ere not preserved at trial). Fundam ent al errors are
v iolation s of

rig hts w h ic h a re “waiv able only” or denia ls of abso lute systemic 1
re q uir ements —bot h of w hic h need not b e pr eser v ed by obj ect ion

. Me ndez

v. St ate , 138 2 S.W .3d 3 34, 341 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2004) ; Ma ri n v . St ate , 85 1 S. W .2 d 27 5, 2 80 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1993) , over

ru led on o ther gr ounds by Cai

n v. State , 947 S.W .2d 262 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 199 7). T hus, Pela che w as required to object unless this rig ht is one that is either w aivable onl y or an absol ute, sy ste micreq uir ement. Pel ache re fers to no auth or it y hol din g thatthe compl ain ts sta ted i n i ss ues fiv e and si x co nst it ute e it her

a w aiv abl e only rightor an absol ute, sy ste micr eq uir ement. Ev en if Pel ache w as not req uir ed to preser v e these is sues , he has ci ted n o aut hor it y to sup port his argum ent s. To p re s e rve a n issue f or app ellate rev iew , “the brief must cont ain a cl ear and conc is e ar g ument for the cont enti ons made, w it h appr opr iat e c it ati ons to au tho rities and to the reco rd.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8.1( i)

. “A n ar g ument t hat fai ls to ci te supp orting auth oritypresen ts not hing f or re v iew .” Roc ha v . St ate , 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d 1 , 2 0 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (ci ti n g Mc Far lan d v . St ate , 928 S .W .2d 4 82, 5 12 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 6)),
see Dun kl

in v. State , 194 S.W .3d 14, 23 (Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 2006, no p et.) ; W

il li s v . St ate , 192 S. W .3d 585, 597 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 2006, pet. r ef’d) ; Den nis v. Sta te , 151 S.W .3d 7 45, 752 (T e x. Ap p .–Amar il lo 2004, pet. re f’d) ; Ki ng v . St ate , 1 7 S

. W

. 3 d 7 , 2 3 (T e x. App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 2000, pet . r ef’d) ( op. o n r eh’ g ). Be caus e Pel ache has faile d to5

ci te s uppor

ti ng auth or it y

for h is ar g uments thatthe noti ce to hi m thatthe Stat e w as seek ing to en hance hi s s entenc e v iol ated his r ig ht t o due pr oces s, or thatthe pr oces s o f enhanci ng his se ntenc e v iol ated his ri g ht to due pr oces s, is sues fiv e and si x ar e i nadeq uatel y

br iefed and pr esent s n othi ng for r ev iew

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38 .1(i); R ocha, 16 S.W .3d at 20 (h old ing that an ar g ument th a t f a ils to ci te t o s uppor ti ng auth or it y

i n s uppor

t of cl aim pr esent s
n o t h in g f o r r e vie w). I wo u ld o ve rr u le is s u e s f ive a n d si x. For thes e r eason s, I r espec tfull y di ss ent.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Publ is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Di ss enti ng Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 6th d ay

of June, 2009.