Affirm ed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 6 , 202 4

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 3

- 00 645

- 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 v enireperson 2 and eventually elicited that she would abide by the judge’s instruction s 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 c ourt told both attorneys
, “I ’ m going to strike [her] for cause, number 2.” Appellant did not object. The c ourt 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. T rial counsel made no challenge to the array on the record by c laiming that a ppellant was being deprived of a lawfully constituted jury3

and continued to make peremptory strikes of the panel. The jury was seated and sworn by the c ourt 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 th e 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 by4

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
communi cate appellant’s position in time for the judge to correct the alleged error.
See Reyna, 168 S.W.3d 17 9; 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 constitut ional 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, 89 6 (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)