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 No s . 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, a rguing 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, “stuck2

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 offense s. T he trial court determined that there w as sufficient evide nce 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 ‟ confi nement 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 evidenc e violating “the express provisions for confidentiality in Chapter
4 2.12§ 9(j) (1), Code of Criminal Pr ocedure” bec ause admission made appellant‟s PSI report, juv enile criminal history, and “personal identification information such as birth date, social security number and driver‟s license number . . . a public record.”

Wh en t he State offered a copy of the PSI report into evidence at the sentencing hearing, a ppellant‟s trial counsel stated, “We have no ob jections, Judge, for the record.”
T he trial court then admitted the PSI report. Appellant contends on appeal that no o bjection was necessary to preserve error in
this case because
, as a prerequisite for appellate review, Texas Rule of Ap pellate Procedure 33.1(a)(1)(A) requires appellant to object and make “the trial court aware of the complaint, [ only if] the specific gro unds 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 for3

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 a ware 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 objectio n are apparent from the context; n othing 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 i d .; 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 publica tion) ( b ecause appellant did not object to the trial court‟s admission of the PSI report, he failed t o 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.
Tex as , 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 fundament al 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 judgment s 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.