AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed July 13, 2016.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01337-CR

JAVIER COLUNGA-PINA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1360052-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Brown

Appellant Javier Colunga-Pina appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a 

child younger than fourteen. He signed a written judicial confession and entered an open plea of 

guilty. The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at nine years’ 

confinement. In a single issue, he contends the trial court erred by failing to swear in the

interpreter and ascertain his certification and credentials at one of the hearings held in this case. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The appellate record reflects that translators were used during several hearings in this 

case, including appellant’s guilty plea hearing on August 6, 2015. Appellant’s complaints 

involve a June 18, 2015 hearing. The reporter’s record of that hearing lists appearances by the 

parties’ attorneys and by Alex Rivera as interpreter. At that proceeding, the trial judge stated he 

understood appellant needed a translator. He asked “Alex” to raise his or her right hand and 
–2–

asked, “Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will truly translate from English to Spanish 

and Spanish to English all the proceedings in this cause?” The interpreter replied, “I do, Your 

Honor.” The judge then referred to a letter appellant’s cell mate had written indicating appellant 

had three witnesses who were going to falsely testify in his favor. The judge stated he was going 

to read the letter in English and asked the translator to translate the letter into Spanish for 

appellant. The judge wanted appellant’s lawyer to investigate the allegations. They then 

discussed appellant’s motion to dismiss his attorney and a letter appellant had written 

complaining about his attorney. The judge gave defense counsel the opportunity to respond to 

the allegations. The court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss his attorney and put the case on 

hold pending an investigation into the attempt to have witnesses lie. Appellant did not raise any 

objections about the translator during the hearing or at any other time.

For the first time on appeal, appellant now raises a complaint about the trial court’s 

handling of the interpreter. Although appellant contends in his sole issue that the trial court 

failed to swear in the interpreter and determine his certification and credentials, his argument 

under this issue reveals he is actually complaining about the trial court’s failure to establish the 

identity of or credentials of the interpreter. As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for 

appellate review, the record must show the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely 

objection that stated the grounds for the ruling sought from the trial court and that the trial court 

ruled on the objection. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). By failing to raise his complaints in the trial 

court, appellant has failed to preserve this issue for our review. See Montoya v. State, 811 

S.W.2d 671, 673 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1991, no pet.) (by failing to object, defendant 

waived his right to complain of use of bailiff as interpreter). 

Even if we consider the merits of appellant’s issue, there is no reversible error. Appellant 

contends the court was required to appoint a licensed interpreter under section 57.002(b) of the 
–3–

government code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 57.002(b) (West Supp. 2015) (“A court may, 

on its own motion, appoint . . . a licensed court interpreter for an individual who can hear but 

does not comprehend or communicate in English.”). He does not contend or attempt to show the 

interpreter appointed was not actually licensed, but rather argues the court erred by failing to 

establish that the interpreter was licensed. Appellant cites no law requiring the trial court to 

determine on the record the credentials of the interpreter. While it may be the better practice to 

have the interpreter state his name and license number for the record, the trial judge has wide 

discretion in determining the adequacy of interpretive services. See Linton v. State, 275 S.W.3d 

493, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). We will not find error from a record that is silent as to 

whether or not an interpreter was licensed. See Ridge v. State, 205 S.W.3d 591, 597 (Tex. 

App.—Waco 2006, pet. ref’d) (where defendant argued court erred in failing to appoint licensed 

interpreter, court of appeals refused to find error when record was silent as to whether interpreter 

was licensed). 

Further, any error in failing to determine on the record the identity and credentials of the 

interpreter is nonconstitutional error subject to a harm analysis. Any nonconstitutional error that 

does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b). Appellant 

does not attempt to argue that the alleged error impacted his understanding of the hearing in 

question or his later decision to plead guilty or otherwise harmed him in any way. He asserts he 

is entitled to a reversal merely because the court failed to establish the interpreter’s identity and 

credentials. At the hearing in question, the interpreter swore he would truly translate the 

proceedings. At the end of the hearing, the trial judge addressed appellant directly and asked if 

he had any other complaints about his attorney or if there was anything else he wanted the judge 

to know. Appellant had a brief conversation with the judge and nothing indicates he did not 

understand what was the judge was asking or had any difficulty responding. We conclude any 
–4–

error in failing to ask the interpreter to state his name and license number on the record at the 

brief pretrial hearing did not affect appellant’s substantial rights. We overrule appellant’s sole 

issue.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

151337F.U05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–5–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JAVIER COLUNGA-PINA, Appellant

No. 05-15-01337-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1360052-S.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown, Justices 

Lang-Miers and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 13th day of July, 2016.