The 5th Court of Appeals decided JESUS ANTONIO PONCE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee, on July 12, 2017.
The Court issued a memorandum opinion affirming Appellant’s conviction for Assault..
The case was on appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 in Dallas County, Texas, as Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-70299-J & F14-33407-J. From the appellate court:
Jesus Antonio Ponce appeals the revocation of his community supervision probation in two separate family violence cases. In a single issue, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because the probation department’s failure to place him on the Mental Health and Mental Retardation (“MHMR”) caseload resulted in an impermissible modification to the conditions of his community supervision and violated his right to due process. The State brings one cross-issue requesting that we modify the judgment in trial court cause number F14-33407-J to accurately reflect what occurred in the trial court below. We resolve appellant’s single issue against him. We modify the judgment in cause number F14- 33407-J as requested by the State and affirm the judgment as reformed. We additionally affirm the trial court’s judgment in trial court cause number F12-70299-J.
A review of the record shows that appellant did not object or otherwise bring to the trial court’s attention any complaint regarding an alleged modification of the conditions of his community supervision. Nor did appellant make any argument to the trial court that the probation department’s failure to place him on the MHMR caseload caused him to violate the other terms of his community supervision. Generally, a party must first complain in the trial court to preserve a complaint for appellate review. See Landers v. State, 402 S.W.3d 252, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Even alleged constitutional errors, such as a denial of due process, may be waived by the failure to object at trial. See Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Because appellant did not raise this issue in the trial court, he has failed to preserve it for review.
This article is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or create an client-lawyer relationship among any individuals or entities. All views expressed in this article or at the linked web pages are those of the responsible writer on a particular date, and should not necessarily be attributed to this writer, his law firm, or its clients. NOTHING IN THIS WEBSITE CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE, and the information contained herein should never be used as a substitute for consulting a lawyer. No warranty is made as to the thoroughness or accuracy of any content. Users of this site release and hold harmless all individuals and entities who author articles on this site for any information collected regarding visitors to this site as well as for any other harm resulting from visitors' use of this site. The views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the author, or of the author's clients.