NO. 07-08 -026 5-CR; 07-08 -026 6-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A APR IL 15 , 200 9

_________

_________

_________

___ MARTI N MARTINEZ, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 22 2 ND DI ST RI CT COU RT OF DE AF SMI T H CO UNT Y; NO . C R- 07K- 180, CR -0 7K- 181; HO NO RA BLE R OLAN D SAU L, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lant, M arti n M arti nez , w as charg ed i n tw o i ndi ctment s w it h three c ounts of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t, one c ount of i ndece ncy w it h a chi ld by cont act , and tw o c ounts of indec ency

w it h a chi ld by ex posure. Appel lan t w aiv ed a jur y tr ial and w as found g uil ty by the tr ial cour

t and sent enced to 50 y ears i n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ceInstitu tiona l Di v ision (TDCJ- I D) for each coun t of agg rav ate d sexual assau lt, 20 years in the TD CJ -I D for th e i ndece n cy wit h a c hil d by co ntac t, and 10 y ears i n the TDC J- ID forA ll se n t e n c e s we re t o ru n co n c u rr e n t ly. 1 2 each countof ind ecency w it h a chi ld by ex posure. By one is sue, appel lan t c hal len g es the 1 j ud g me nto f t he t r i al c ou rt. W e affi r m. By a s ing le is sue, appel lan t c ontends thatthe tr ial courti mpermi ss ibl y co nsi dered unreli abl e ev ide nce in order to inc re ase the puni shment ass ess ed. W e di sag re e w it h the appel lan t’ s c haract er iz ati on of the act ion of the t ri al cour t. Factual Bac kg ro und Appel lan t does not assai l any of the facts re g ardin g the tr ial co urt’ s fin din g of g uil t, therefore, w e do not find itnec ess ar y to re ci te t he factua l back g ro und ex ceptas per tai ns to the i s s ue o f t he p un i s hm en t he ar i ng . D ur i ng t he p un i s hm en t he ar i ng , th e tr i al c ou rt made the foll ow ing st atement: Mr. M artine z , I have hea rd the e v iden ce i n b o t h t he guilt-innoce nce p hase and pun ishm entpha se of this trial, and f ran k ly, s ir , w haty ou h ave done is despi cabl e. It’ s t er ri ble
. T hese gir ls w ere l ittle gir ls, nine and seven, or prob ably y oun ger w h e n this a l l s t a rt e d
. Th e y l o v e d y o u , t h e y tr ust ed y ou, t heydep e n d e d on y ou, a nd they obey ed y ou, I ’m s ure. And y ou’ v e hur

t noton ly

them; y ou’ v e hur

t y our w hol e famil y . One o f the thi ng s a bout thi s k ind of cr ime is i t’ s s o bad, peopl e don’ t w ant t o bel iev e tha t som ebo dy the y

know could do some thing like this. It’s just – it’s a bad–it’s jus t notv er

y – nothardly

i mag ina ble
. Peopl e j ustca n’ti mag ine so mebody doi ng w hat y ou hav e done. An d therefore, they

thi nk, w ell , t he c hil dren mus t notbe t ell ing the trut h , or t heT he h ighlig hte d po rtion is the po rtion of the reco rd of

w hich ap pellan t com plains. 2 3 chi ldre n ’ s p a re n t s mu s t b e p u t t i n g t h e m u p t o i t , o r , y o u k n o w , a l l k i n d s of things, ma king ex cuses for y ou. An d really , y ou’re the o ne th at’s cau sed it a ll
. So t h e wh o le fa m il y is t o rn a p a rt
. Yo u r wife n o w is go in g t o h a ve t o li ve w it hout y ou. I app re ci ate Mr. E v er itt’ s a rg uments aboutal cohol , and y ou may be – certain ly may be an a lco h o lic. You certa inly may drink too m uch, and I’m sure tha t’ s t ru e, bu t al cohol i s n ot t he c ause for w hat y ou’ v e done. W hat y ou hav e done has much d eeper roots than j ustdr ink ing too much o r bein g drun k on occa sion. Now , w e’ve he ard a lot of dif feren t instan ces w here y ou w ere a ct in g i nappropr iat ely w it h the se chi ldren. I dare s ay I don’ t t hin k y ou w ere i ntox ic ated ev er y ti me thi s h appened. Unfort unately

for y ou, they

hav en’t real ly

come up w ith a good w ay to cure p edo ph iles. I n fa ct , t here’s h ard ly an y cu re a t all fo r p edo ph iles. Th atmea ns if

so meo ne is rele ased b ack i nt o soci ety , t hey ’re v ery li kely to r e c ommit the same offense, may be w ith diff ere nt v ictims , but basi cally

t he same of

fe nse. A nd about the only

w ay w e ca n protect society from p edophi l e s is to g e tt h e m o u to f

s o c i e ty a n d k e e p t h e m o u to f s o c i e ty. 2 T he trial cou rt then prono unce d the sente nces th at ap pellan t app eals. Di sc uss ion Appel lan t c ontends t hat t he hi g hli g hted por ti on of the tr ial co urt’ s s tatement s ind ic ates that the tr ial cour t improper ly inc re ased the sent ences imp o se d on appel lan t. T his i s s o, a c c ordi ng t o ap pe l l an t, b ec au s e th e tr i al c ou rt rel i ed o n un rel i ab l e or false infor mati on i n as ses si ng the puni shment
. How ev er , the re cord c lea rl y demons trates that4

appel lan t nev er

obj ect ed to the sta tements by the tr ial court , duri ng the tr ial or i n any pos ttr ial moti ons, or

i n any manner pl aced the t ri al cour

t on noti ce of h is cu rrentco ntent ion
. To preser

v e er ro r for appe ll ate rev iew , a par ty mustpresenta t imel y

obj ect ion to the t ri al court, st ate t he s peci fic g ro unds for th e obj ect ion , and obta in a r uli ng . T EX . R. A PP . P. 33. 1(a); T rev ino v. State, 174 S.W .3d 925 , 927 (Tex.App .–Corp us Christi 2005 , pet . ref ’d). Ev en c lai ms of consti tuti onal vi ola ti ons can be w aiv ed bya failu re to obj ect . Trev ino , 174 S.W .3d a t 927
. "Al l a par ty has to do to av oid the forfeiture of a c omplai nt on appeal i s t o let the trial j udge kno w what he wants, w hy he th inks himse lf entitle d to it, an d to do so cl ear ly enoug h for the jud g e to understa nd him at a ti me w hen the tr ial cour t is i n a p ro per posi ti on to do someth ing abouti t." Lank sto n v . St ate, 827 S. W .2d 9 07, 9 09 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) ( en banc ). App ellantconce des th at th ere w as no o bjectio n lodged at trial, b ut argues tha t this cour tm a y p ro c e e d t o c o n s i d e r

t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s a c t i o n s w h e n t h e t r i a l c o u rts o li ci ted, procured, c ons id ered, a nd reli ed on inh erentl y unreli abl e i nformati on to dete rmi ne th e sent ence. Ar nol d v . S ta te , No. 05- 07- 00120- CR , 200 8 Tex .App. LEX IS 5 747 (Tex .App. –Da ll as Jul y

31, 2008, no pet .) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on)
. H o wever, o n cl ose re v iew , t h e A rn old opi nio n i s c lea rl y di sti ng uis habl e from t he facts of the p re sent cas e. In A rn old , t he tr ial co urt, after recei v ing an o pen pl ea i n a d ru g ca se in w hic h the defendant w as re q uest ing a deferred adj udi cat ion , s tated thatthe defendant’ s s tor y w as inc re dib le and unb eli ev abl e. I d. at*2- *3. H ow ev er , t he tri al cour t s tated that , i f the d e fe n d a n t c o u ld co n vinc e th e co u rtt h a t t h e de fe n d a n t’ s st o ry w a s t ru e by pa ss in g a pol y g ra ph, t h e n t h e c our t w oul d g ra nt a deferred adj udi cat ion
. Id. at * 3. The defendant5

ag re ed butsu bseq uently fail ed th e pol y g ra ph te st. I d. at*4. After reconv eni ng the pun ishm enthea ring, the trial court foun d ap pellan t guilty and sente nced him to ten years inc ar cerati on. Id. at *4- *5. T he Dal las Cour t of Appea ls poi nted out t hat, ev en th oug h the polyg ra p h r e s ults w ere ne ither of fered nor adm itted into evidence , the trial court clearly solicited, procured , consid ered and relied on th em . Id
. a t *8. Accordin gly , the court in Ar nol d c oncl uded ap pel lan t had not w aiv ed th e arg ument by fail ing t o o bje ct to t he proceed ing
. Id. at * 16- *17. Those op erati v e facts are notpresenti n the ca se before the cour t. Appel lan t c annot cite the court to a single referen ce in the record tha t supp orts the theo ry thatthe trial court consid ered unreliab le or false informa tion o r ev iden ce in orde r to i ncrea se his sent ence in ma king i ts sent ence dete rmina tion. The refore, ap pellan t’s failure to o bject h as resulte d in a w aiv er of any co mplai nt on appeal
. Trev ino , 174 S.W .3d a t 927
. Ev en w ere w e to conc lud e that appell ant had not w aiv ed the arg ument, itw oul d be of no ass is tanc e. The record demonst ra tes that the tr ial co urt w as ex press ing an o pin ion about the n ature of the conv icti on of appel lant on mul ti ple co unts of ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t and i ndece ncy

w it h a c hil d. How ev er , appell ant does not directus to, nor does the re cord s how , any

ev ide nce ex pla ini ng w hat a ffect , i f any , t he referenc ed s tatementhad on the trial court’s se nte nce det ermin ation
. T he court had n ever indica ted what the sente nce w as to be , t herefore i t i s i ll ogical to sta te t hat t he referenc ed s tatementsh ow s h e w as inc re asi ng the sent ence for s ome i ll ic itreason . For all of thes e reas ons, appell ant’ s i ss ue is ov er ru led
.6 Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s s ole i ss ue, t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
Do not p ubl is h.