Court Opinion

ID: 2893737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 22:49:10.264585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:51.219181
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-05-0096-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

JUNE 29, 2006

______________________________

LEONARD GONZALES, a/k/a MANUEL GONZALEZ, 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 137
TH
 DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2004-406,411; HON. CECIL G. PURYEAR, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Leonard Gonzales, a/k/a Manuel Gonzalez (appellant) appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault.  His two issues concern comments made by the prosecutor during voir dire.  The comments involved the punishment to which the appellant could be subjected and the existence of “special circumstances” warranting an automatic life sentence.
(footnote: 1)  
We affirm the judgment.

The record discloses that appellant voiced no objection to the trial court about the comments at issue.  Uttering a timely objection was required to preserve his complaint.  
See Turner v. State
, 805 S.W.2d 423, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring a contemporaneous objection to conduct occurring at voir dire to preserve the complaint for review); 
Ross v. State, 
154 S.W.3d 804, 807 (Tex. App.
–
Houston [14
th
 Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d) (holding the same).  Having failed to object, the complaints were waived.    

Overruling appellant’s two issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

FOOTNOTES
1:The trial court, as opposed to the jury, was to assess punishment.