Court Opinion

ID: 9913208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-27 07:09:56.121183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:47.554461
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed December 19, 2023

                                    S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-22-01221-CR

                    ALEX ROBERT CASTILLO, Appellant
                                  V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. F21-76406-S

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
             Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia
                             Opinion by Justice Garcia
      A jury convicted appellant of murder and assessed punishment at thirty years

in prison. In three issues, appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting

punishment evidence regarding his prior conviction for cruelty to animals and the

judgment should be modified to reflect his not guilty plea. In a cross-point, the State

argues the judgment should also be modified to reflect the correct statute for the

offense.

      We conclude appellant’s first two issues have not been preserved for our

review. We modify the judgment and as modified, affirm.
                                 I. BACKGROUND

      A jury found appellant guilty of murder for the shooting death of Jesse Avila.

During the punishment phase, the State presented evidence of appellant’s 2012

conviction for cruelty to nonlivestock animals. The evidence was offered during the

testimony of Investigator Darrell Doty, and when it was offered appellant’s counsel

expressly stated that he had no objection. When the punishment phase concluded,

the jury assessed punishment at thirty years in prison. This timely appeal followed.

                                   II. ANALYSIS

A.    Evidence of Prior Conviction

      Appellant’s first issue argues the trial court erred when it allowed the State to

introduce punishment evidence of his prior conviction for cruelty to animals. His

second issue argues the admission of the prior conviction violated his rights to due

process and due course of law and the prior judgment of conviction is “false and

void on its face.”

      The law in Texas is well settled that to preserve a complaint for appellate

review, a party must make a timely, specific objection in the trial court. TEX. R. APP.

P. 33.1(a)(1); Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Little

v. State, 758 S.W.2d 551, 563–64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). To the extent appellant

seeks to argue the prior judgment is void, an objection was nonetheless required to

preserve the issue for our review. See Ex parte Sanders, 588 S.W.2d 383, 384 (Tex.

                                         –2–
Crim. App. 1979) “[f]ailure to object to proof of a void conviction has been held to

constitute waiver.”

      Appellant’s counsel expressly stated that he had no objection when the

complained-of evidence was offered for admission. Accordingly, appellant’s first

two issues have not been preserved for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1).

B.    Modifying the Judgment

      Appellant argues the judgment should be modified to reflect his not guilty

plea. The State agrees and argues the judgment should also be modified to reflect

the correct statute for the charged offense.

      We are authorized to reform a judgment to make the record speak the truth

when we have the necessary information to do so. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26,

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

      Here, the judgment recites that appellant pleaded guilty, but the record reflects

that appellant pleaded not guilty. The judgment also lists the statute for the offense

as “TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(C).” The correct statute for the offense,

however, is TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b).

       We therefore sustain appellant’s third issue and the State’s cross-point and

modify the judgment accordingly.

                                 III. CONCLUSION

      We resolve appellant’s first two issues against him. We modify the judgment

to reflect that appellant pleaded not guilty and that the statute for the offense was

                                         –3–
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b). As modified, the trial court’s judgment is

affirmed.

                                      /Dennise Garcia/
                                      DENNISE GARCIA
                                      JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
221221F.U05

                                   –4–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

ALEX ROBERT CASTILLO,                         On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial
Appellant                                     District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                              Trial Court Cause No. F21-76406-S.
No. 05-22-01221-CR           V.               Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia.
                                              Justices Partida-Kipness and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                  Pedersen, III participating.

       Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED to reflect that Alex Robert Castillo pleaded not guilty and the correct
statute for the offense is TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b).
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered December 19, 2023

                                        –5–