Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 24, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-11-00311-CR

NO. 14-11-00312-CR

ROBERTO ISAIAS PINTO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1253866 & 1253867

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

Roberto Isaias Pinto appeals his conviction for aggravated assault of a family 

member in cause number 1253866 and his conviction for aggravated assault in cause 

number 1253867, arguing that the trial court erroneously admitted a presentence 

investigation (PSI) report into evidence. We affirm.

Background

On March 3, 2010, complainants, Angelica Armos and Carlos Calderon, were 

riding in Calderon‟s van when appellant started bumping into the back of the van with his 

truck. Appellant then pulled his truck up to the passenger side of Calderon‟s van, “stuck 
2

his hand out of the window [of his truck] and just started shooting at” complainants. 

Appellant shot Armos in the head and wrist and Calderon in the mouth.

Appellant was indicted for aggravated assault of a family member in cause number 

1253866 and for aggravated assault in cause number 1253867. Appellant pled guilty to 

the charged offenses. The trial court determined that there was sufficient evidence to find 

appellant guilty but deferred sentencing appellant until a PSI was conducted. The trial 

court held a hearing on January 19, 2011 and sentenced appellant to 45 years‟

confinement in cause number 1253867 and to 20 years‟ confinement in cause number 

1253867. Appellant timely appealed his convictions.

Analysis

In three issues, appellant argues that the trial court erroneously admitted the PSI

report into evidence violating “the express provisions for confidentiality in Chapter 

42.12§ 9(j) (1), Code of Criminal Procedure” because admission made appellant‟s PSI 

report, juvenile criminal history, and “personal identification information such as birth 

date, social security number and driver‟s license number . . . a public record.”

When the State offered a copy of the PSI report into evidence at the sentencing 

hearing, appellant‟s trial counsel stated, “We have no objections, Judge, for the record.” 

The trial court then admitted the PSI report. 

Appellant contends on appeal that no objection was necessary to preserve error in 

this case because, as a prerequisite for appellate review, Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 33.1(a)(1)(A) requires appellant to object and make “the trial court aware of 

the complaint, [only if] the specific grounds were [not] apparent from the context.”

According to appellant, here “the grounds for confidentiality were apparent from the 

context of Article 42.12, § 9 (j) (1),” and appellant “should not have to object to an 

obvious breach of confidentiality when the statute is so clear.” We reject appellant‟s 

contention. 

Rule 33.1(a)(1)(A) states that, as a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for 
3

appellate review, the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial court by a 

timely objection that “stated 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). Rule 33.1(a) provides that a complaining party‟s objection is sufficient 

when the specific grounds for the objection are apparent from the context; nothing in 

Rule 33.1(a) dispenses with the requirement to object in order to preserve error for 

appellate review. See id. 

Here, appellant failed to object to the admission of the PSI report and, thus, failed 

to preserve error for review. See id.; see also Jordan v. State, No. 2-05-450-CR, 2006 

WL 2773788, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 28, 2006, no pet.). (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (because appellant did not object to the trial court‟s admission 

of the PSI report, he failed to preserve any alleged error for review). Additionally, 

“appellant failed to preserve any error in the admission into evidence of [the PSI report] 

when defense counsel stated „no objection[s]‟ to the admission of this evidence.” 

Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), cert. denied, Estrada v. 

Texas, 131 S. Ct. 905 (2011). Very few errors are fundamental, obviating the necessity 

of objection. Appellant has cited no authority that admission of a PSI report into 

evidence is fundamental error, if error at all. We believe it is not, such that objection was 

required to preserve error, if any.

Accordingly, we overrule appellant‟s three issues.
4

Conclusion

Having overruled appellant‟s three issues, we affirm the trial court‟s judgments in 

cause number 1253866 and in cause number 1253867.

/s/ Adele Hedges

Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges, Justice Seymore and Senior Justice Mirabal.

1

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

 

1

Senior Justice Margaret Garner Mirabal sitting by assignment.