Enrique Santana Rangel v. State

Opinion

Opinion filed July 27, 2006

Opinion filed July 27, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                       Nos. 11-05-00131-CR & 11-05-00132-CR

                                                    __________

                            ENRIQUE SANTANA RANGEL, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

                                                          Dallas County, Texas

                            Trial Court Cause Nos. F-0443562-KJ & F-0443569-KJ

                                                                   O P I N I O N

Enrique Santana Rangel appeals his conviction by a jury, upon his plea of guilty, of two offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of fourteen.  The jury assessed his punishment in each case at twenty-five years in the Texas Department of Criminal JusticeB Institutional Division, to be served concurrently, and a fine of $10,000.  In two points, he contends that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of extraneous offenses and prior bad acts against a person who was neither a party to the charges against him nor a testifying witness and in allowing the prosecutor to ask during voir dire an improper commitment question respecting the proper purpose of punishment.  Inasmuch as Rangel presented no objection to the evidence of which he complains or to the prosecutor=s question on voir dire, nothing is preserved for review.  Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Dixon v. State, 2 S.W.3d 263, 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Robinson v. State, 85 S.W.3d 338, 340 (Tex. App.CTexarkana 2002, pet. ref=d).  Rangel presents no case suggesting that any error was preserved on appeal despite the lack of an objection, and we are not aware of any.  We overrule points one and two.

The judgment is affirmed.     

PER CURIAM

July 27, 2006 

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of:  McCall, J., and

Strange, J., and Hill, J.^[1]

---

^[1]John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth sitting by assignment.