Brandon Joseph De La Rosa v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 14, 2019
• Docket: 14-18-00301-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 14, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00301-CR

BRANDON JOSEPH DE LA ROSA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1498441

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Brandon Joseph de la Rosa appeals from his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child. After appellant waived his right to a jury, the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 47 years and 147 days in prison. In a single issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in the punishment phase of trial by admitting evidence of an extraneous offense or bad act that appellant allegedly committed when he was under ten years of age. Because appellant failed to preserve this complaint in the trial court, we affirm.

Discussion

During the guilt-innocence phase of appellant’s trial, substantial evidence was introduced that appellant sexually abused his step-daughter from the time she was five or six years old until she turned ten or eleven. During the punishment phase, the State introduced evidence that appellant had previously sexually abused two other children on multiple occasions. One of the additional victims stated that appellant was between the ages of fourteen and nineteen when the abuse occurred, and the other stated that appellant was between the ages of eight and nine when the abuse occurred.

On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence concerning the alleged abuse he committed when he was under ten years of age. Appellant asserts that such evidence was inadmissible because it occurred before he could have been criminally prosecuted for the offense, citing Texas Penal Code section 8.07. Appellant, however, did not object to this testimony in the trial court on any basis. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Because appellant failed to object to the evidence that he now complains about on appeal, he failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review. See, e.g., Wilkinson v. State, 523 S.W.3d 818, 827 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s sole issue.

2 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Frances Bourliot Justice

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Bourliot. Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).