Juan Fransisco Sanchez v. State ( 2014 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00483-CR
JUAN FRANSISCO SANCHEZ APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Introduction
A jury convicted Appellant Juan Fransisco Sanchez of burglary of a
habitation. The trial court assessed his punishment at twelve years’ confinement
and sentenced him accordingly. In a single issue, Appellant claims that the trial
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
court erred by failing to instruct the jury to disregard remarks the prosecutor
made during closing argument that were outside the record. We affirm.
Brief Summary of the Facts
A woman watched two men burgle her neighbor’s house around two
o’clock one afternoon. Although she was unable to identify the driver of the white
SUV the burglars were using, she was able to identify the second man as
Appellant. She was less certain of her identification at trial, partly because
Appellant had darker hair and a mustache at trial, and she did not remember the
man she saw committing the burglary having facial hair.
The police, however, were able to identify Jonathan Guzmán Franco as
the owner and driver of the SUV. He agreed to testify against Appellant in
exchange for a six-month sentence.
Jury-Argument Claim Not Preserved
Appellant claims that the State impermissibly argued matters outside the
record to bolster Franco’s testimony. Appellant timely objected to the argument
of which he now complains but did not receive an adverse ruling from the trial
court. Instead, the trial court responded,
I’ll just advise the jurors that what the lawyers say is not evidence.
You just have to use your own recall of the testimony or your own
reasonable deductions from the evidence, from the testimony. What
the lawyers say is not testimony.
You may continue.
2
In order to have preserved a complaint for appellate review, a party must
have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states
the specific grounds for the desired ruling if those grounds are not apparent from
the context of the request, objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A);
Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235, 238–39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). In addition,
the complaining party must have obtained an adverse ruling from the trial judge
or objected to the judge’s refusal to rule. Moff v. State, 131 S.W.3d 485, 489
(Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
On the record before us, there is no ruling on Appellant’s objection to the
State’s jury argument nor is there any objection to the trial judge’s failure to rule.
The record also does not show that Appellant asked the trial court to instruct the
jury to disregard the remarks of which he complained. We hold, therefore, that
Appellant has not preserved his complaint for review.
Conclusion
Because Appellant has not preserved his claim for review, we overrule his
sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Anne Gardner
ANNE GARDNER
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: June 19, 2014
3