Dulces Nombres Balderrama v. State ( 2004 )

NO. 07-02-0511-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
FEBRUARY 5, 2004
______________________________
DULCES NOMBRES BALDERRAMA AKA
DULCES N. BALDERRAMA, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 121ST DISTRICT COURT OF TERRY COUNTY;
NO. 4844; HON. KELLY G. MOORE, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presenting one issue which, he posits, requires reversal, appellant Dulces Nombres
Balderrama challenges his conviction of felony grade driving while intoxicated. Appellant
pled guilty to the offense, but requested the jury to assess his punishment. After hearing
1
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004).
evidence, the jury assessed his punishment at eight years confinement in the Institutional
Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. In his sole issue, appellant contends the
trial court erred in ruling that a defense witness could not testify that he (appellant) had
been sentenced to four years penal confinement because of a revocation of probation in
Andrews County heretofore granted him. Disagreeing that reversal is required, we affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
In relevant part, the record shows the following colloquy that took place in the
absence of the jury:
The Court: Okay. I have Shawn Bockleman . . . who’s going to be the
Defense’s next witness. And Mr. Bockleman, I just want you to know that
since -- it’s my understanding on representation from Mr. Martinez that Mr.
Balderrama’s probation in Andrews County was revoked by order of the
judge and that he’s sentenced to serve four years in prison, but that has been
appealed and that Mr. Balderrama is out on bond on that matter. Under the
law and for the purposes of this case then it’s just as if there had been no
revokation [sic]. And so I’ve ruled in this case that the fact that a revokation
[sic] order has been entered by the judge or that he’s been sentenced to any
penitentiary time would not be mentioned since it’s on appeal. Okay?
The Witness: Okay
The Court: I think that should cover the circumstances.
The record does not show any objection to the ruling of the court.
Rule 33.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure specifically requires that to
preserve a complaint for appellate review, the complaining party must make a “timely
request, objection, or motion” with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the
complaint. See also Purtell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 360, 365-66 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), cert.
2
denied, 490 U.S. 1059, 109 S. Ct. 1972, 104 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1989); Zillender v. State, 557
S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).
Because of the lack of a trial objection, there is nothing preserved for appellate
review. Accordingly, appellant’s issue does not present reversible error, and it is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
John T. Boyd
Senior Justice
Do not publish.
3