in the Matter of F.J.R.

Opinion filed July 2, 2009

 

 

Opinion filed July 2, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                        In The

                                                                             

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                  ___________

 

                                                          No. 11-07-00342-CV

                                                    __________

 

                                        IN THE MATTER OF F.J.R.

 

 

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law sitting as Juvenile Court

 

                                                         Midland County, Texas

 

                                                     Trial Court Cause No. 5619

 

 

                                            M E M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N

The jury found that F.J.R. engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the offense of sexual assault.  The trial court committed appellant to the care and custody of the Texas Youth Commission for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed his twenty-first birthday.  We affirm.

The record reflects that appellant filed a motion for the appointment of an interpreter and that the motion was granted.  The record further reflects that the same Acertified, qualified, State-authorized  interpreter@ was present in the courtroom and assisted appellant throughout the proceedings without objection. 


In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error because the interpreter was not given an oath until appellant was sworn in as the final witness in the three-day trial.  The State argues that appellant has failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review.  We agree.

The record before this court is silent as to the oath administered to the interpreter.  During pretrial proceedings, the trial court described the interpreter as a Acertified, qualified, State-authorized  interpreter.@  The same interpreter served appellant throughout the trial court proceedings. 

Failure to timely object results in failure to preserve a complaint for appellate review.  Tex. R. App. P. 33.  The waiver applies to failure to object to an unsworn witness or an interpreter.  Beck v. State, 719 S.W.2d 205, 213 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Castillo v. State, 807 S.W.2d 8 (Tex. App.CCorpus Christi 1991, pet. ref=d); Lara v. State, 761 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. App.CEastland 1988, no pet.).  The issue is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

 

JIM R. WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE

 

July 2, 2009

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.