See T EX

. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 4 9 .0 4 (a ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ); i d. § 49. 09( b) ( 2) ( Ver non Supp. 200 8) 1 ( pr ov i di ng t hat an of f ense under § 49. 04 " i s a f el ony of t he t hi r d degr ee i f i t i s shown .

. . t hat t he p er son h as p r e v io u s ly b e e n c o n v ic te d

. . . tw o tim e s o f a n y o th e r o f f e n s e r e la tin g to th e o p e r a tin g o f a m o to r v e h ic le w h ile 

# NUM BER 13-07- 548- 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
C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

A NT ONIO COR TE Z, 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 2 8th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .


# ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON
Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z A jury f oun d ap pellan t, Ant onio Cortez, guilty of one coun t of

f elon y d riv ing w hile int ox ic ated and one c ount of int ox ic ati on assaul t. The t ri al cour t as ses sed a s entenc e of 1 2i ntox i c ated " ).
See i d. § 4 9 .0 7 (a )( 1 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ); i d. § 49. 07( c) ( est abl i shi ng t hat an of f ense under sect i on 2 49

. 07 i s a t hi rd de gre e fe l on y ).

See i d. § 1 2 .3 4 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 3 ) ( p r o v id in g th a t t h e p u n is h m e n t r a n g e f o r a th ir d d e g r e e f e lo n y is 3 i m pri s on m en t of t w o t o t en y ea rs, pl us an op t i on al fi ne of $1 0,00 0).

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47. 4. 4
See T EX

. C OD E C R IM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art 38

. 05 (Ve rno n 1 97 9). 5
S ee B l ue v . S ta te , 4 1 S

. W

. 3d 1 29, 132 ( T ex. C r i m

. App. 200 0) ( en b anc) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) 6 (co nc l ud i ng t ha t t he ap pe l l an t w as no t requ i red t o o bjec t t o t he t ri al co urt ' s i m pro pe r co m m en t s t o p res erve error be c au s e t he co m m en t s ros e t o t he l eve l of fun da m en t al error). 

## 2 ten y ear s' i mpri sonment

. By tw o i ss ues, appel lan t c ontends that : (1 ) comments by the 3


## tr ial co urt c onst it uted fundamental er ro r; and (2 ) he w as deni ed due pr oces s and a fair tr ial

w hen the trial court ov erruled his obje ction to a question the pro secut or asked a w itness. I. B A CKGRO UND 

## As this is a m em oran dum o pinion , and t he partie s a re f am iliar w ith the f acts, w e w ill not recite the m he re except as nece ssaryt o e xp lain the Court's decision and the ba sic

re asons for i t. 4


## II. T RI A L 

## C OURT 

## ' S 

## C OM M ENTS 

## By his f irst issue, appe llant arg ues that the trial court mad e com me nts to th e ju ry that: ( 1 ) v i o l a t e d a r t i c l e 3 8

. 0 5 o f t h e c o d e o f c r i mi n a l p r o c e d u r e ; a n d ( 2 ) c o n s ti tuted 5 

## fundamental er ro r. The Stat e c ontends thatappel lan t di d not pr eser v e er ro r becau se he 6


## did no t obje ct to the trial court's remarks. In i ts openi ng r emark s t o the j ur y , t he tr ial co urt s tated that i t w oul d ex pla in how the criminal trial w ould procee d in this case . Th e trial court explai n ed, amo ng othe r things, that: (1) it w oul d r ead i nst ru cti ons to t he j ur y ; ( 2) the Stat e w oul d r ead t he i ndi ctment ; ( 3)S e e M o o re v . S ta te , 907 S. W

. 2d 918, 923 ( T ex. App–H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] 1995, pet

. r ef ' d) ( hol di ng 7 t hat " t he a r t i cl e 38

. 05 r i ght t o pr ohi bi t t he j udge f r om com m ent i ng o n t he wei ght of t he e v i dence or conv ey i ng h i s o p i n i o n o f th e c a s e

. . . i s

. . . fo rf e i ta b l e b y i n a c ti o n "); s e e a l s o W e a d v . S ta te , N o. 13- 00- 015- C R , 200 5 T ex. App. LEX I S 5643, at * 3- 4 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Jul y 2 1, 2 00 5, n o pet

. ) ( not desi gnat ed f or p u b l i c a ti o n ) (s e tti n g o u t t h a t "a n o b je c ti o n i s re q u i re d to p re s e rv e a n a rti c l e 3 8 .0 5 a rg u m e n t f o r a p p e l l a te r ev i ew" ) ( ci t i ng M oo re , 9 0 7 S .W .2 d a t 9 2 3 ); see a l so T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33. 1.

S e e P e a v e y

v . S ta te , 248 S. W

. 3d 4 55, 470 ( T ex. App–Aust i n 20 08 , p et. ref ' d) ( concl udi ng t hat 8 appel l ant di d no t pr eser v e er r or beca use h e di d no t m ake a t i m el y obj ect i on t o t he t r i al cour t ' s com m ent s and th a t a n a rti c l e 3 8 .0 5 o b je c ti o n i s fo rf e i te d b y i n a c ti o n ); D a v i s v . S ta te , 177 S. W

. 3d 35 5, 36 3 (T ex. App. –H oust on [ 1st D i s t ] 200 5, no pet

. ) ( en b anc) ( det er m i ni ng t hat app el l ant f ai l ed t o pr eser v e er r or concer ni ng a c om pl ai nt t hat t he t r i al cour t com m ent ed o n t he wei ght of t he e v i dence because hi s t r i al ob j ec t i on w as no t t i m el y ). 

## 3 the d e f e n d a n t w oul d ent er hi s p lea ; ( 4) both si des w oul d pr esentan o peni ng st atement; (5 ) the S tate w oul d pr esent tes ti mony ; ( 6) the defendant w oul d hav e an oppor tunity to
pr esentev ide n ce i f

he d eci ded t o do so; ( 7) the defendant w oul d r est hi s c ase; ( 8) the Stat e w oul d hav e an oppor tuni ty to pr esen t rebuttal ev ide nce; ( 9) w hen bot h s ide s

com plete d prese nting evidence, the trial court w ould read the charge to th e jury ; (10) each attor ney w oul d ar g ue i ts cas e to the jur y ; and (11) the jur

y w oul d beg in del ibe ra ti ons. The
tr ial co urt t hen s tated , " If the jury r eache s a v er dic t, y ou w il l be r etur ned bac k i nto t he

cour tr oom so the v er dic t may be re ad in ope n c our t. If the jur y r eache s a v er dic t, then at that poi nt, y our

duty w il l be c omplet ed, s inc e the C our t w ill b e a ss ess ing puni shment on this case and y ou wi ll be discharged. " (Emp hasis ad ded ). App ellant f irst argues tha t the trial court's comm ent s v iolate d article 38 .05 ; howev er, appel lan t di d not make a ti mely obj ect ion to the t ri al cour t pur suantto arti cl e 38. 05. 7


## T h e re f o re , h e h a s n o t p re s e rve d t h is is s u e f o r a p p e ll a t e re vie w. 8


## Rel y ing on Bl ue v

. St ate , app ell ant n ex t ar g ues that it w as fundamental er ro r w hen the t ri al cour

t s tated , " If

the jur y r eache s a v er dic t, th e n a t that poi nt, y our duty w il l be compl eted, si nce the C our t w il l be as ses si ng punis h m e n t o n t his ca se and y ou w il l beSee Bl ue , 41 S. W

. 3d at 132- 33 ( concl udi ng t hat t he a ppel l ant was no t r equi r ed t o ob j ect t o t he t r i al 9 cour t ' s i m pr oper com m ent s t o pr eser v e er r or beca use " t he j udge' s c om m ent s i m par t ed i nf or m at i on t o t he ven i re t ha t t ai nted t he pres um pti on of i nn oc en c e").

S ee J as pe r v . S ta te , 6 1 S .W

. 3d 41 3, 42 1 (T ex

. C ri m

. A pp

. 20 01 ) ( ex pl ai ni ng t ha t eve n i f i t w ere 10 bo un d t o f ol l ow t he pl ura l i t y op i ni on of Bl ue , t he t r i al cour t ' s com m ent s di d no t r i se t o t he l ev el of f undam ent al e rr o r) ; Peavey , 248 S. W

. 3d a t 4 71 (" T he p l ur al i t y opi ni on i n Bl ue i s not bi ndi ng p r eceden t t hat m ust be fol l ow ed

. " ).

See Jaspe r , 61 S. W

. 3d at 421 ( " N one of t he t r i al j udge' s com m ent s r ose t o such a l ev el as t o be ar 11 o n th e p re s u m p ti o n o f i n n o c e n c e o r vi ti a te th e i m p a rti a l i ty o f th e ju ry." ); H e rn a n d e z v . S ta te , 507 S. W

. 2d 2 09, 2 1 1 (T e x . C rim . A p p

. 1 9 7 4 ) (c o n c l u d i n g th e tri a l c o u rt’ s s ta te m e n t, “T h a t’ s fi n e

. Y o u c a n try th a t o n a p p e a l .” d i d n o t ri s e to th e l e v e l o f f u n d a m e n ta l e rr o r a n d c o u l d h a v e b e e n c o rr e c te d w i th a ju ry i n s tr u c ti o n to di s reg ard ). 

## 4 dis char g ed." ( Emp h a sis a d d e d ). W e di sag re e. There is no maj or it y opi nio n i n Bl ue , 9


## ther efore i t i s n ot bi ndi ng pr ecede nt. H ow ev er , ev en i f it w er e, i t w oul d not aff ect our 10


## anal y si s. The tr ial co urt w as ex pla ini ng the pr o ce d u re thatw oul d be follo w ed if the jury

re tur ned a v er dic t—g uil ty or not g uil ty

. The r ecor d r ev eal s t hat a ppel lan t ele ct e d f o r the
tr ial co urt t o as ses s p uni shment

. Therefor e, the tr ial cour t c or re ctl y

i nformed t he j ur

y that the trial court w ould be asse ssing punishm ent . Th e trial court's com me n t s d id not im ply that it bel iev ed th at ap pel lan t w as g uil ty , as appell ant arg ues. W e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial

cour t' s c omments did not cons ti tute fundamental er ro r becau se the c omments did not tai nt the p re sumpti on of i nnoce nce. Ac cor din g ly , w e ov er ru le appel lan t' s fir st is sue. 11


## III

. P ROS E CUT OR 

## ' S 

## C ONDUC T 

## By hi s s econd is sue, appel lan t cont ends that the t ri al cour t er re d w hen i t ov er ru led his obje ction to alleged im p ro p e r te stimo ny by the prosecu tor during the red irect

ex aminat ion of M er cy Ar menta, a w it ness for the Stat e. Appel lan t ci te s t h e f o llow ing

c o ll o qu y: [Pr osec utor

]: Do y ou r emem b er tel li ng me th at [ appel lan t] w as dr iv ing , y ou j ust don’ t w ant t o g et hi m in tr oubl e?See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33. 1. 12
S e e L e d a y

v . S ta te , 9 8 3 S. W

. 2 d 7 1 3 , 7 1 8 ( Tex

. Cr i m

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 8 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( p r ov i di ng t hat 13 ov er r ul i ng a n ob j ect i on t o ev i dence wi l l gen er al l y not re sul t i n r ev er sal w hen ot her evi dence of t he sa m e f act w a s r e c e i v e d , e i th e r b e fo re o r a fte r th e c o m p l a i n e d o f ru l i n g ); E th i n g to n v . S ta te , 819 S. W

. 2d 8 54, 858 ( T ex. 

## 5 [Arm ent a]: No, I never— Def ense coun sel obje cted stating, "I’m g oing to obje ct tha t’s m aking h im [the prosecu tor]

a w it ness ." The tr ial cour t ov er ru led the obj ect ion

. Then the follo w ing ex chang e oc cur re d: [Pr osec utor

]: So y ou don' t r ecal l that? [Ar menta]: No, I hav e nev er done that. [Pr osec utor

]: The v er

y fir st ti me w e met? [Ar menta]: No. [Pr osec utor

]: And I ask ed y ou i f y ou w er e i ntox ic ated w hen s ome of the s taff smel led [s ic ] y ou of dr ink ing her e at the cour thous e? [Ar menta]: No. [Pr osec utor

]: And y ou to ld me, no, y ou w er en'ti ntox ic ated? [Ar menta]: No. [Prose cuto r]: And y ou to ld me he cou ldn't get in troub le-- [Ar menta]: I nev er sa id that. [Prose cuto r]: T hat he w as driv ing. And-- [Ar menta]: I nev er sa id that. Her e, w hen t he pr osec utor ag ain st ated that Ar menta told hi m that appel lan t w as dr iv ing and could no t get in t roub le, ap pellan t did no t obje ct to the prosecu tor's rema rks. 12 

## Therefor e, ap pel lan t di d not pr eser v e er ro r becau se he di d not obj ect ev er y ti me the all eg edl y i nadmis si ble ev ide nce w as off er ed. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. 13C r i m

. App. 1991) ( " [ I ] t i s wel l set t l ed t hat an er r or i n ad m i ssi on o f ev i dence i s cur ed wher e t he sa m e ev i dence

c o m e s in e ls e w h e r e w ith o u t o b j e c tio n ; d e f e n s e c o u n s e l m u s t o b j e c t e v e r y tim e a lle g e d ly in a d m is s ib le e v i d e n c e is o ff e re d ."); s e e a l s o F u e n te s v . S ta te , 991 S. W

. 2d 2 67, 273 ( T ex. C r i m

. App. 199 9) ( concl udi ng t hat t he appel l ant w ai v ed any com pl ai nt t o t he t r i al cour t ' s al l eged i m pr oper re m ar k s because he di d not r enew hi s ob j ec t i on w he n t he t ri al co urt repe ated t he co m pl ai ne d o f r em ark s vi rt ua l l y verba t i m ). 

## 6 III

. C ONCL US I ON 

## W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt' s j udg ment.

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e

Do not p ubl is h. T EX



## . R. A PP



## . P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 13t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.