AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed February 17, 2017.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-16-00225-CR

No. 05-16-00226-CR

ENRIQUE DAVILA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F15-55409-W and F15-55410–W

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Myers, and Richter1

Opinion by Justice Richter

In two indictments, appellant Enrique Davila was charged with aggravated robbery. TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011). Appellant waived his right to a jury and entered an 

open plea of guilty to each charge. After hearing testimony, the trial court accepted appellant’s 

pleas, found appellant guilty, and sentenced appellant to ten years’ incarceration in each case. In 

this appeal, appellant contends his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the crime in violation 

of the United States and Texas Constitutions, and he argues that the trial court erred by admitting 

evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. We affirm 

the trial court’s judgments.

 1 The Hon. Martin Richter, Justice, Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, Retired, sitting by assignment.
–2–

BACKGROUND

Appellant signed two judicial confessions stipulating that on June 16, 2015, he 

intentionally and knowingly, “while in the course of committing theft of property and with intent 

to obtain or maintain control of said property,” placed two individuals “in fear of imminent 

bodily injury or death” and used and exhibited a firearm, a deadly weapon. 

Appellant pleaded guilty to both offenses and waived a jury. The cases proceeded to 

trial. The trial court took judicial notice of appellant’s judicial confessions. A police officer 

testified that appellant admitted in a video statement “that he did commit the robberies.” 

Appellant also testified, admitting that he committed the offenses. The evidence showed that 

appellant stole a car and $15 cash at gunpoint from the first victim. Appellant then used the 

stolen car to drive to a second location, where he pointed a gun at the second victim and stole a 

cell phone. Appellant drove to his home in the stolen car, where he was arrested. The SIM card 

from the second victim’s cell phone was found in appellant’s pocket. The gun used in the 

robberies was found in appellant’s driveway.

The trial court proceeded to render judgment and sentenced appellant to ten years’ 

incarceration in each case. After the trial court rendered judgment, appellant filed his notice of 

appeal. As noted, he complains of constitutional violations arising from the length of his 

sentences and the erroneous admission of evidence at trial.

APPLICABLE LAW AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

An individual adjudged guilty of a first degree felony “shall be punished by 

imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life or for any term of not more 

than 99 years or less than 5 years.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32(a) (West 2011) (first degree 

felony punishment). Aggravated robbery is a first degree felony. Id. § 29.03(b). If the 

punishment assessed is within the statutory range, it does not violate the federal and state 
–3–

constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. See U.S. CONST. amend. VIII; 

TEX. CONST. art. 1, § 13; Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, pet. 

ref’d).

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees that “[i]n all criminal 

prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against 

him.” U.S. CONST. amend. VI. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004), the Court 

held that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment bars the admission of testimonial 

statements of a witness who does not appear at trial unless he is unavailable to testify and the 

defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him. Crawford error is subject to a harm 

analysis under which we consider a number of non-exclusive factors, including (1) the 

importance of hearsay statements to the State’s case, (2) whether the hearsay evidence was 

cumulative of other evidence, (3) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or 

contradicting the hearsay evidence on material points, and (4) the overall strength of the State’s 

case. Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634, 639 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Davis v. State, 203 

S.W.3d 845, 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Certain constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual 

punishment, may be waived. Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2003, no pet.); see also Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (discussing 

preservation requirements for three categories of defendants’ rights). To preserve error for 

appellate review, the record must generally show the appellant made his complaint known to the 

trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1). To preserve 

a complaint that the sentences were disproportionate to the crimes committed, a defendant must 

have specifically objected on that basis at the time the sentences were pronounced or in a post-
–4–

trial motion. Bell v. State, 326 S.W.3d 716, 724 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. dism’d, untimely 

filed); Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d). 

Similarly, failure to object in a timely and specific manner forfeits complaints about the 

admissibility of evidence, even though the error may concern a constitutional right of the 

defendant. Deener v. State, 214 S.W.3d 522, 527 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. ref’d) (citing 

Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)). The right of confrontation is a 

forfeitable right and must be preserved by a timely and specific objection at trial. Id. An 

objection that the evidence is hearsay does not preserve an objection to admission of evidence in 

violation of the Confrontation Clause. Id. (citing Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 179 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2005)).

ANALYSIS

A. Length of sentences

Appellant did not complain the sentences were excessive or grossly disproportionate to 

the crimes, either at the time they were imposed or in a motion for new trial. Accordingly, 

appellant has not preserved this complaint for appellate review. See Bell, 326 S.W.3d at 724; 

Castaneda, 135 S.W.3d at 723. Further, even if appellant had preserved his complaint, the 

sentences imposed are within the statutory range and therefore do not violate the federal and 

state constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. See Kirk, 949 S.W.2d at 

772. We overrule appellant’s first and second issues.

B. Admission of evidence

Appellant’s counsel objected to the testimony of police detective Laura Roach as follows:

Q. And how did you come into contact with [appellant]?

A. That night I was contacted by the patrol officers that there had been some 

robberies going on in the area, and they had come into contact with [appellant] 

and he was in a stolen vehicle and had been—he was a suspect in a carjacking that 

had occurred, and so they brought him up to my unit to speak with him.
–5–

Q. Okay. And because you were a detective, you gained a lot of information 

from the patrol officers?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And did you learn from those patrol officers—

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: We’d object to hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Roach then testified about what she learned from the patrol officers who pursued and 

arrested appellant. She also testified about information she obtained from the complainants. 

Appellant made no further objections to Roach’s testimony. On cross-examination by 

appellant’s counsel, Roach testified that appellant admitted to the robberies in a video recorded 

statement at police headquarters. Later in the trial, appellant testified to many of the same 

material facts, including pointing a gun at the complainants and taking their property.

Appellant argues on appeal that “[t]he State failed to produce the complainants but still 

sought to elicit their testimony,” and the facts of the underlying offenses, through Roach’s 

testimony. He contends the admission of Roach’s testimony therefore violated the Confrontation 

Clause. Appellant’s objection to hearsay, however, did not preserve this complaint. See Deener, 

214 S.W.3d at 527. In addition, appellant made only the single objection quoted above. To 

preserve error, he was required to object each time inadmissible evidence was offered. See 

Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (quoting Ethington v. State, 819 

S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

Further, even if error were preserved, we would conclude that any error in admission of 

the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.2

 See Davis, 203 S.W.3d at 852. 

 2 The State argues that because trial was to the bench, we may presume the trial court disregarded inadmissible evidence. But this 

presumption was rejected in Gipson v. State, 844 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Instead, if the record reveals constitutional error 

subject to a harmless error review, the rules of appellate procedure require a court of appeals to “determine[ ] beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

error did not contribute to the . . . punishment.” TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(a). For nonconstitutional error, we determine whether the defendant’s 

substantial rights were affected. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b); Thomas v. State, No. PD-1086-15, 2016 WL 6609750, at *5–6 (Tex. Crim. App. 

Nov. 9, 2016).
–6–

Appellant argues that the type of testimony improperly admitted, including the use of a gun in 

the offenses, was highly inflammatory and should be exclusively reserved for an eyewitness. 

But in both his written judicial confession and his testimony at trial, appellant admitted 

committing the offenses using a firearm.

3

 There were no conflicts in the evidence regarding the 

facts of the offenses. There were no conflicts in the evidence regarding appellant’s identity as 

the perpetrator of the offenses. The trial court also had the opportunity to observe appellant’s 

credibility when he testified about his reasons for committing the crime. The evidence 

supporting the State’s case was strong and uncontroverted. See id.4 We overrule appellant’s 

third issue.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

160225F.U05

 3 Both judicial confessions state that “the defendant used and exhibited a deadly weapon, to-wit: A FIREARM.” At trial, appellant testified:

Q. Mr. Davila, you on the date of this incident took a loaded gun and pointed it at a victim after you punched him 

and demanded his car; is that right?

A. Yes, ma’am.

4 We also conclude that Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), on which appellant relies for his argument, is 

distinguishable. The court in Russeau held that under Crawford, graphic and detailed jail incident reports and prison disciplinary records were 

testimonial in nature, and thus, were improperly admitted at the punishment phase of trial as business records because Russeau did not have the 

opportunity to confront the declarants. Id. at 880–81. Russeau was a capital case. See generally id. Here, Roach’s testimony was to facts 

tending to support appellant’s own previous confession to the robberies for which he had been charged, not evidence of appellant’s background or 

character offered in the punishment phase of a death penalty case. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.071 (West Supp. 2016) (procedure 

in capital case).

/Martin Richter/

MARTIN RICHTER

JUSTICE, ASSIGNED
–7–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ENRIQUE DAVILA, Appellant

No. 05-16-00225-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-55409-W.

Opinion delivered by Justice Richter; 

Justices Lang-Miers and Myers 

participating.

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

Judgment entered this 17th day of February, 2017.
–8–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ENRIQUE DAVILA, Appellant

No. 05-16-00226-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-55410-W.

Opinion delivered by Justice Richter; 

Justices Lang-Miers and Myers 

participating.

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

Judgment entered this 17th day of February, 2017.