NUMBER 13-12-00305-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
ERNEST GONZALEZ
A/K/A ERNESTO GONZALEZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 377th District Court
of Victoria County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes
Appellant Ernest Gonzalez a/k/a Ernesto Gonzalez appeals his convictions for two
counts of assault involving dating violence, a third-degree felony, see TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(A) (West 2011), enhanced to a second-degree felony by a prior
felony conviction, see id. § 12.42(a) (West Supp. 2011). The jury found appellant guilty
of the two counts, and the trial court assessed punishment at eight years’ confinement in
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, for one count and
eighteen years’ confinement for the other. The trial court ordered the two sentences to
run concurrently. By one issue, appellant argues that the admission of State’s Exhibits
numbers 12 through 14 was improper. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND1
The State indicted appellant for three instances of assaultive conduct on his
girlfriend, but the State abandoned one of the counts during jury deliberations. At trial,
the trial court admitted State’s Exhibits numbers 11 through 14, which were photographs
of the complainant that showed injuries she sustained from an alleged assault.
Appellant did not object to the photographs’ admission. Thereafter, the photographs
were frequently referenced during testimony. Appellant still did not object. Before the
jury retired to deliberate, the trial court noted that State’s Exhibits numbers 1 through 15
would be sent to the jury room during deliberations. Appellant again did not object.
Appellant subsequently moved for a new trial on constitutional grounds, but appellant did
not discuss the exhibits that he is challenging on appeal. Appellant’s new-trial motion
was overruled by operation of law. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(c).
II. PRESERVATION OF ERROR
By his sole issue, appellant contends the admission of State’s Exhibits numbers 12
through 14 was to the detriment of appellant, cumulative, prejudicial, and inflammatory.
In the absence of a timely and proper objection, this issue is not preserved for our review.
1
Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not
recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for
it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
2
Preservation of error is a prerequisite to presenting a claim on appeal. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 33.1(a). To preserve error, an appellant must present a timely objection to the trial
court, state the specific grounds for the objection, and obtain a ruling. Id; see Griggs v.
State, 213 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Appellant failed to do so.2 We
overrule appellant’s sole issue.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
GREGORY T. PERKES
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
15th day of August, 2013.
2
We note that objection at trial is unnecessary where the error alleged is “fundamental”—that is,
when the error causes the defendant to suffer “egregious harm” and prevents him from receiving a fair and
impartial trial. Ganther v. State, 187 S.W.3d 641, 650 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d);
see TEX. R. EVID. 103(d). No “fundamental” error is alleged here. Therefore, appellant was required to
preserve his issue at trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a).
3