Alex Robert Castillo v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed December 19, 2023
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-01221-CR
ALEX ROBERT CASTILLO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F21-76406-S
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Garcia
A jury convicted appellant of murder and assessed punishment at thirty years
in prison. In three issues, appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting
punishment evidence regarding his prior conviction for cruelty to animals and the
judgment should be modified to reflect his not guilty plea. In a cross-point, the State
argues the judgment should also be modified to reflect the correct statute for the
offense.
We conclude appellant’s first two issues have not been preserved for our
review. We modify the judgment and as modified, affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A jury found appellant guilty of murder for the shooting death of Jesse Avila.
During the punishment phase, the State presented evidence of appellant’s 2012
conviction for cruelty to nonlivestock animals. The evidence was offered during the
testimony of Investigator Darrell Doty, and when it was offered appellant’s counsel
expressly stated that he had no objection. When the punishment phase concluded,
the jury assessed punishment at thirty years in prison. This timely appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Evidence of Prior Conviction
Appellant’s first issue argues the trial court erred when it allowed the State to
introduce punishment evidence of his prior conviction for cruelty to animals. His
second issue argues the admission of the prior conviction violated his rights to due
process and due course of law and the prior judgment of conviction is “false and
void on its face.”
The law in Texas is well settled that to preserve a complaint for appellate
review, a party must make a timely, specific objection in the trial court. TEX. R. APP.
P. 33.1(a)(1); Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Little
v. State, 758 S.W.2d 551, 563–64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). To the extent appellant
seeks to argue the prior judgment is void, an objection was nonetheless required to
preserve the issue for our review. See Ex parte Sanders, 588 S.W.2d 383, 384 (Tex.
–2–
Crim. App. 1979) “[f]ailure to object to proof of a void conviction has been held to
constitute waiver.”
Appellant’s counsel expressly stated that he had no objection when the
complained-of evidence was offered for admission. Accordingly, appellant’s first
two issues have not been preserved for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1).
B. Modifying the Judgment
Appellant argues the judgment should be modified to reflect his not guilty
plea. The State agrees and argues the judgment should also be modified to reflect
the correct statute for the charged offense.
We are authorized to reform a judgment to make the record speak the truth
when we have the necessary information to do so. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26,
27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
Here, the judgment recites that appellant pleaded guilty, but the record reflects
that appellant pleaded not guilty. The judgment also lists the statute for the offense
as “TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(C).” The correct statute for the offense,
however, is TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b).
We therefore sustain appellant’s third issue and the State’s cross-point and
modify the judgment accordingly.
III. CONCLUSION
We resolve appellant’s first two issues against him. We modify the judgment
to reflect that appellant pleaded not guilty and that the statute for the offense was
–3–
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b). As modified, the trial court’s judgment is
affirmed.
/Dennise Garcia/
DENNISE GARCIA
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
221221F.U05
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ALEX ROBERT CASTILLO, On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F21-76406-S.
No. 05-22-01221-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia.
Justices Partida-Kipness and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Pedersen, III participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED to reflect that Alex Robert Castillo pleaded not guilty and the correct
statute for the offense is TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b).
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered December 19, 2023
–5–