Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 6, 2024

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00645-CR

LEONARDO PEREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 12th District Court

Grimes County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19064

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Leonardo Perez plead guilty to Possession of a Controlled 

Substance Penalty Group 1 in the amount of 4 grams or more but less than 200 

grams, a lesser included offense of Possession with Intent to Deliver as charged in 

the indictment. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(e). Appellant plead 

“True” to the enhancement paragraph increasing his punishment range to a term of 

imprisonment for 5-99 years to life in Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Institutional Division and a fine not to exceed $10,000.00. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 
2

§ 12.42(b). The jury assessed a punishment of a term of 50 years confinement in the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division.

In appellant’s sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court abused 

its discretion by striking venireperson 2 because she demonstrated that she could 

consider the full range of punishment in a proper case.

Appellant did not preserve his complaint for our review. We affirm.

Background

On August 22, 2023, the State and appellant’s counsel conducted a voir dire 

of the jury panel. The State individually questioned panel members if they could 

consider the full range of punishment, 5 to 99 years to life in the Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice Institutional Division. Venireperson 36 confirmed that he could 

not consider the full range of punishment. Venirepersons 10, 9, and 2 also confirmed 

that they could not consider the full range of punishment, specifically the 99 years 

to life.

Appellant’s trial counsel attempted to rehabilitate venireperson 2 and 

eventually elicited that she would abide by the judge’s instructions in the case.

Outside the hearing of the panel, the State challenged venireperson 2 for cause 

for her inability to consider the full range of punishment. Appellant’s trial counsel 

did not agree on venirepersons 2 and 36 being excused for cause but did agree on 

others being excused for cause.

The trial court summoned venireperson 2 outside the hearing of the panel for 

additional questioning on the range of punishment. After the trial court questioned 

her, the court told both attorneys, “I’m going to strike [her] for cause, number 2.” 

Appellant did not object. The court then questioned appellant’s trial counsel whether 

he wished to challenge anyone for cause. Appellant’s trial counsel stated he had no 

additional challenges for cause. Trial counsel made no challenge to the array on the 

record by claiming that appellant was being deprived of a lawfully constituted jury 
3

and continued to make peremptory strikes of the panel. The jury was seated and 

sworn by the court and at no time did appellant’s trial counsel make an objection on 

the record to the sworn jury. 

Discussion

The State argues that appellant did not preserve his claim, as he did not object 

to the trial court striking venireperson 2.

For a party to preserve an issue for appeal, it must make a timely, specific 

objection on the alleged error and obtain a ruling. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Even 

a potential constitutional violation can be waived if the party fails to object at trial. 

Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).

Preserving error is not a technical exercise that requires the party to meet a 

certain formula; instead, “[s]traightforward communication in plain English will 

always suffice.” Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907, 908–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). 

The party’s communication must (1) tell the trial judge what the party wants, (2) 

inform the judge why the party is entitled to that relief, and (3) be clear enough so 

that the judge understands the party’s position in time for the judge to correct the 

error. Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Lankston, 827 

S.W.2d at 909. To meet these requirements, the party must “state[ ] the grounds for 

the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient 

specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds 

were apparent from the context.” Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A).

Here, appellant did not object to or otherwise address the trial court striking 

venireperson 2. After hearing additional answers from both venirepersons 2 and 36, 

the trial court struck venireperson 2 for cause and did not strike venireperson 36. 

When asked if the defense had anyone he wished to challenge for cause, appellant’s 

counsel responded, “Judge, I have — based on the State’s for cause and the ones we 

have agreed to, the ones that have already been granted either by agreement or by 
4

yourself, Judge, we don’t have any additional for cause.” Appellant did not at any 

time object on the issue of venireperson 2 being struck. Appellant did not tell the 

trial court what relief he sought, justify entitlement to that relief, or clearly 

communicate appellant’s position in time for the judge to correct the alleged error. 

See Reyna, 168 S.W.3d 179; Lankston, 827 S.W.2d at 909. Even if appellant was to 

contend that there was a constitutional issue, appellant failed to specify what laws 

or constitutional provisions were implicated, which is required. Karenev, 281 

S.W.3d at 434; Lovill, 319 S.W.3d at 692–93; see Alvarez v. State, 491 S.W.3d 362, 

368 (Tex. App. 2016). As such, appellant failed to preserve on appeal his contention 

that venireperson 2 was wrongly struck from the jury. Ortiz v. State, 993 S.W.2d 

892, 896 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, no pet.) (holding appellant failed to preserve 

error when he did not object to trial court ruling granting State’s motion to challenge 

juror for cause) (citing Fuller v. State, 827 S.W.2d 919, 924-25 (Tex. Crim. App.

1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 922, 113 S.Ct. 3035, 125 L.Ed.2d 722 (1993)). We 

overrule appellant’s sole issue on appeal. 

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Meagan Hassan

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)