Nelson Anthony Jasso v. State ( 2019 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00445-CR
Nelson Anthony JASSO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 2017CRB000696D3
Honorable Beckie Palomo, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 14, 2019
AFFIRMED
Nelson Anthony Jasso appeals his punishment of twenty-five years in prison after a jury
found him guilty of first-degree murder. Jasso asserts the trial court erred in allowing the victim’s
widow to testify during the punishment phase about her daughter’s suicide attempt. However,
because Jasso failed to preserve his sole issue for review, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On the evening of February 17, 2017, Juan Gutierrez went to collect rent from Jasso. Upon
arriving at the duplex, Gutierrez and Jasso had an altercation. Gutierrez was killed by a gunshot
04-18-00445-CR
wound to the chest. A jury found Jasso guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the first-degree murder
of Gutierrez.
During the punishment phase of the trial, Gutierrez’s widow testified that after the murder
of her husband, her daughter attempted suicide. Jasso asserts this testimony violated his Eighth
Amendment rights because the jury considered this testimony to determine sentencing. During this
testimony, Jasso did not object. Subsequently, Jasso was sentenced by the jury to twenty-five years
in prison. Jasso timely perfected appeal.
PRESERVATION OF ERROR
Jasso’s sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in allowing the victim’s widow
to testify during the punishment phase about her daughter’s suicide attempt. Before reversing a
sentence, we must first determine whether Jasso preserved error for our review. See Darcy v. State,
488 S.W.3d 325, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). “[I]n order to preserve a complaint for appellate
review a defendant must have presented to the trial court a timely request or objection with
sufficient specificity to apprise the court of the grounds,” unless the specific grounds were apparent
from the context. Kirchner v. State, 739 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987, no pet.);
accord TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). Although Jasso asserts that the error in admitting the
testimony was of a constitutional nature, this does not excuse him from the requirements of error
preservation. See Darcy, 488 S.W.3d at 329 (“[W]e have generally treated errors in the admission
of evidence as being subject to procedural default, regardless of the constitutional right
involved.”).
Jasso did not object before, during, or after the testimony of the victim’s widow. Without
Jasso preserving error for our review, we may not reverse his sentence. See id. at 328. Accordingly,
Jasso’s sole issue is overruled.
-2-
04-18-00445-CR
CONCLUSION
Overruling Jasso’s sole issue for review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-