### NUM BER 13-07- 436- 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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG

A ND RES GOMEZ L ONG ORIA , A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 3 77t h Dist rict C ou rt of Vict oria Co un ty , T exas



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la
Appel lan t, Andre s Go m e z Long or ia, w as ind ic ted for the off ense of murder

. See T EX

. P EN AL C OD E A NN

. § 1 9

. 0 2 (b )( 1 ) ( V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). T h e vi c t im wa s S a va n n a h Ro d ri gu e z,O n J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e tri a l ju d g e s i g n e d a d o c u m e n t e n ti tl e d “T R IA L C O U R T ’ S C E R T IF IC A T IO N 1 O F D EF EN D AN T ’ S R I G H T O F AP PE AL, ” whi ch cer t i f i es t hat t hi s case “ i s not a pl ea- bar gai n case , and t he d e fe n d a n t h a s th e ri g h t o f a p p e a l [.] ”

Jason T ur ner , a det ect i v e wi t h t he Vi ct or i a Pol i ce Depar t m ent , t est i f i ed t hat app el l ant m ur der ed 2 S ava nn ah R od ri gu ez on Ju ne 2 5 , 2 0 0 6

. T he ne x t da y , D etec t i ve T urn er i ntervi ew ed ap pe l l an t ’ s m othe r, Yol anda Longo r i a. T hi s i nt er v i ew began at 3: 07 p. m

. (1 5: 07)

. D et ect i v e T ur ner r ecor ded t hi s i nt er v i ew on a D VD , whi ch was a dm i t t ed i nt o ev i dence at t he p uni shm ent pha se as St at e’ s Exhi bi t 78. 2 the mot her

of appell ant’ s chi ld. W it hout the b enefit of a pl ea- bar g ain ag re ement, appel lan t 1 ple aded g uil ty

to the o ff ense and r eq uest ed th at a jur y as ses s p uni shment

. After hear ing evidence, the jury assesse d pu nishm ent at nine ty- nine ye a rs’ imp risonm ent , plus a $10,000 fine. By

one is sue, a p pel lan t arg ues the S tate commi tted re v er si ble er ro r by

a rgu in g to th e ju ry th a t it sh o u ld re ly u p o n it s pe rso n a l o p in io n , e xpe rie n ce , a n d kn o wled ge i n as s es s i ng p un i s hm en t. W e affi r m. I. Puni shmentH ear ing After both si des pr esent ed ev ide nce on puni shment , t he St ate b eg an the openi ng seg ment of i ts cl osi ng arg ument. At that ti me, th e prose cut or made t he foll ow ing

c o m p la in e d -o f

re m a rk s t o t h e ju ry: And he [app ell ant] cal mly w alk ed, a s she [the v ic ti m] dov e int o the c ar as her safe har bor , cr

y ing and sc re aming , and he w alk ed th at di sta nce and coldly brou ght t hat gun u p and sh ot her rig ht th rough the arm, a slop py miss. Ano the r miss, rig ht th rough her che st, o u t h e r b re ast. An d no w , she’s aspi ra ti ng i n bl ood. She know s w hat’ s g oin g on. She know s w hat’ s g oin g to hap pen to her. * * * * I’ ll t e ll y ou, t he defense is pr obabl y g oin g to pla y

the “9 11" ta pe. Besi des the w hin ing by the defense, w ho do y ou hear at t he l ast , g aspi ng her las t br eath, as ki ng for h elp ? * * * * I’ ll su bmitto y ou—Y ou hav e r ev iew ed Sta te ’s Exhibi t 78, [ ] t o s ee 2 w hat i s madd eni ng , w hen c ompar ed to the te stimony of the— of Y ola nda Long or ia [appel lan t’ s mot her].3 I ’l l t e ll yo u , t h e h e a rt o f

t h e t ru t h is co n s is t e n c y. At 1 5:22: 16, h e [appel lan t] tel ls his mama, “I g otta do w hat I g otta do.” Som eth ing on the sta nd sh e de nies. At 1 5:22: 23, P atr ic ia Long or ia [appel lan t’ s s is ter-i n- law] tri ed to conv inc e hi m to t ur n around. At 1 5:23: 01, s he admi ts to k now ing he h ad a g un. At 1 5:23: 50, she, ag ain , say s, “ he told me he g otta do w hat he g otta do.” At 1 5:24: 19, s he w ar ns the i n- law s t hat h e’s co ming to tow n. At 1 5:25: 3 0, s he s ay s P atr ic ia Long or ia say s h e’s ca lm. In p o ss e ss io n of

hi s f a cu lt ie s. He kn o ws w h a t h e ’s d o in g. At 1 5:30: 52, s he admi ts to v iol ence at the h ands of the defendant and Sav annah [ the v ic ti m], bu t nei ther h a d p ress ed c har g es. An d nei ther had Sav annah. At 15:32:2 0, she admits the defendant had thou g ht ab out s uic ide and ma y be would have bee n be tter of f , beca use h is case w as ho pele ss. At 15 :37 :22 , s h e reme mb ers telling the v ictim the def end ant didn’t care ab out her—still didn’t care ab out her and w ould never marry her. At 1 5:37: 47, y ou hear her tel l her , he’ s h eadi ng to Vi cto ri a, do ing w hat he had to do

. And he w as calm at 15: 38: 18. He sai d i t i n t h e p ast, b ut ne v er did anything. And she den ied th at on the sta nd, as w ell. At 15 :3 8 :4 6 , s h e ad m it te d , t h is t im e , s h e ju st ha d a f e e lin g— * * * * If this ma n gets proba tion—A nd th at’s w hat comm unity supervisi on is, “proba tion. ” T hen , w hen h e gets m ad a t y ou o r y our son or y our da ughter, is he g oin g to cl aim pass ion , i nst ead of pr emedit ati on? I w oul d s ubmitthaty ou need to uphol d the l aw and show

thi s man the same k ind of lov ing pas si on and do w hat y ou’ re g oin g to do.Lu c y O l gu i n i s t he vi c t i m ’ s m othe r. 3 4 Go t o v er dic t form number thr ee. Put li fe on the l ine

. Put $10,000 .00 on th e l ine

. And hi s mot her ca n s ti ll v is ithi m and Lu cy [O lg uin ][ ] w il l nev er

3 see her daug hter

ag ain

. She i s c onfined t o the memori es of he r li fe and her dau ghter. W hen t he St ate p re sent ed th e final se g ment of i ts cl osi ng arg ument, the p ro sec utor made thi s c omplai ned- of comment t o the j ur y : “Y ou s entenc e hi m to l ife.” II. D is cus si on In hi s sol e i ss ue, a ppel lan t c ontends the Stat e c ommitt ed r ev er si ble er ro r by arg uin g to th e j u ry th at it shou ld rely upo n its person al opin ion, e x perien ce, an d kno w ledge in set ti ng the puni shmenti n thi s c ase. Spec ific all y , appel lan t cont ends the S tate br eache d the b oundar ies o f

f in a l ar g ument an d i mposed it s o w n s entenc e on appel lan t by in a p p ro p ri a t e ly i n f lu e n c in g t h e ju ry. Ap pe l l an t, ho w ev er , fai l ed to ob j ec t to th e St at e’ s arg um en ts to th e j ur y

. “ To prese rv e error in prosecu torial argume nt, a def end ant m ust pursu e to an adverse ruling his obje ctions to jury

argumen t.” Ar

chi e v . St ate , 221 S.W .3d 695 , 699 (Tex. Cr im. App. 20 07). “Th e esse ntial requireme nt is a time ly , specif ic request that the trial court ref uses. ” Young

v. State , 137 S.W .3d 6 5 , 6 9 ( T e x. C rim . App . 200 4). Ev en if the error w as such that it could not be cured by an instruction to disregard, th e de f end ant must object and request a mi str ial to pr eser

v e the er ro r. Ma t

h i s v

. S ta te , 6 7 S .W .3d 918, 92 7 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 2). Her e, t he r ecord s how s t hat a ppel lan t d id n o t obj ect , and thus di d notobta in an adv er se ru li ng from t he tr ial co urt on thi s i ss ue. Beca use appel lan t d id n o t obtai n any adv er se ru li ng from t he tr ial cour t, he has faile d to pr eser v e er ro r, if any , on thi s i ss ue. Se e Coc kr ell v. Sta te , 933 S.W .2d 7 3, 89 (Te x

. Crim. App . 199 6) (court held that “a def end ant ’s5

failu re to obj ectto a j ur y arg ument or a def endant’ s f ail ur e to pur sue to an adv er se ru li ng his obj ect ion to a jur

y ar g ument forfeits his ri g ht to compl ain about the ar g um e n t on appeal ”)

. The is sue is ov er ru led

. III . C oncl usi on W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA 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 1 8th d ay

of Dec ember , 200 8.