Juan Manual Gonzales v. State ( 2014 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12-00420-CR
No. 10-13-00122-CR
No. 10-13-00123-CR
No. 10-13-00124-CR
JUAN MANUAL GONZALES,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2011-2074-C1,
2011-2460-C1, 2012-534-C1 and 2012-541-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In Cause No. 10-12-00420-CR, Juan Manuel Gonzales pleaded guilty to the
offense of delivery of a controlled substance. In Cause Nos. 10-13-00122-CR, 10-13-
00123-CR, and 10-13-00124-CR, Gonzales also pleaded guilty to the offense of delivery
of a controlled substance. Gonzales pleaded true to the enhancement and habitual
allegations, and in each cause number, the jury assessed punishment at 99 years
confinement. We affirm.
Background Facts
Officer Scott Vaughn, with the Waco Police Department, testified that he worked
in an undercover capacity in the Drug Enforcement Unit. Vaughn met with Gonzales
on four occasions and purchased methamphetamine. During one of the purchases,
Gonzales introduced Officer Vaughn to Marcus Bautista and told Officer Vaughn that
he would be dealing with Bautista for a while. Officer Vaughn would still contact
Gonzales, but would meet Bautista for the purchase.
Jury Deliberation
Gonzales brings two issues in each cause number. Gonzales first argues that the
trial court impermissibly restricted the jury to consider either a 99 year sentence or life
imprisonment. The jury initially returned a verdict of “99 years or life” on each of the
four verdict forms. The trial court instructed the jury to return to the jury room and
correct the verdict to indicate either 99 years or life on each verdict page. The jury
returned a verdict of 99 years.
Gonzales did not object to the trial court’s instructions to the jury and has waived
any error. TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1. Moreover, the jury’s initial verdict indicated that they
narrowed the decision to either 99 years or life. Gonzales has not shown that he was
harmed by the trial court’s instruction to select only one of those options. See
TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2 (b). We overrule the first issue.
Gonzales v. State Page 2
Exclusion of Evidence
In the second issue, Gonzales argues that the trial court erred in excluding
evidence of the length of Marcus Bautista’s sentence. Gonzales attempted to offer
evidence of Bautista’s sentence for delivery of methamphetamine to Officer Vaughn.
The trial court excluded the evidence finding that it would be “confusing to the jury” to
hear the length of sentence of another individual “who may have greatly different
circumstances.”
We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of
discretion. McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “Under an
abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court should not disturb the trial court's
decision if the ruling was within the zone of reasonable disagreement.” Bigon v. State,
252 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Gonzales cites Article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that allows
the State or defense to offer evidence at punishment “as to any matter that the court
deems relevant to sentencing.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 37.07, § 3 (a) (1) (West
Supp. 2013). Gonzales contends that the length of Bautista’s sentence was relevant
mitigating evidence. In a capital murder case in which the defendant received the death
penalty, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that evidence of a co-defendant’s
conviction and punishment is not included among the mitigating circumstances that a
defendant has a right to present. Joubert v. State, 235 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007). We do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence
of Bautista’s sentence. We overrule the second issue.
Gonzales v. State Page 3
Conclusion
The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed June 5, 2014
Do not publish
[CR PM]
Gonzales v. State Page 4