Court Opinion

ID: 9956126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 08:10:48.901198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:34.626233
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________

          No. 02-23-00146-CR
     ___________________________

BRANDON JESSE RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

                    V.

         THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 485th District Court
         Tarrant County, Texas
        Trial Court No. 1655970

  Before Bassel, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                    I. Introduction

      Appellant Brandon Jesse Rodriguez raises one point on appeal, arguing that the

trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him

when it considered a presentence investigation report (PSI) at punishment. For the

reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                   II. Background

      Rodriguez pleaded guilty—without the benefit of a plea bargain—to the

offense of continuous violence against family. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 25.11. The

case was continued for preparation of the PSI. At the sentencing hearing, the PSI was

referenced at least six times. At no point did Rodriguez object. The trial court

sentenced Rodriguez to six years’ confinement. Rodriguez then perfected this appeal.

                                    III. Discussion

      In his sole point, Rodriguez contends that his right to confront the witnesses

against him was violated when the trial court considered the PSI at punishment.

Rodriquez, however, failed to preserve his complaint. Even if he had preserved it, it

has no merit.

      To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to the trial

court a timely request, objection, or motion sufficiently stating the specific grounds, if

not apparent from the context, for the desired ruling. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1);

Montelongo v. State, 623 S.W.3d 819, 822 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Before this appeal,

                                            2
Rodriguez raised no objection, much less a Confrontation Clause objection, to the

PSI and admits as much.

      Rodriguez asserts that preservation was unnecessary because the law is so well-

settled that an objection would have been futile. See Ex parte Hathorn, 296 S.W.3d 570,

572 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). We have previously expressed reservations about that

precise argument. See Reveron v. State, Nos. 02-23-00041-CR, 02-23-00042-CR, 2023

WL 8467385, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 7, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication) (citing Sell v. State, 488 S.W.3d 397, 398–99 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2016, pet. ref’d)).

      In any event, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “when a PSI is

used in a non-capital case in which the defendant has elected to have the judge

determine sentencing, Crawford 1 does not apply”; thus, there is no violation of a

defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Stringer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 42,

48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). “That is precisely what occurred in this case . . . .”

Reveron, 2023 WL 8467385, at *3 (quoting Sell, 488 S.W.3d at 399).

      Accordingly, we overrule Rodriguez’s sole point.

      1
       Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004).

                                           3
                                  IV. Conclusion

      Having overruled Rodriquez’s sole point, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                    /s/ Dabney Bassel

                                                    Dabney Bassel
                                                    Justice

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

Delivered: March 28, 2024

                                          4