Rosilez Joseph Juan v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 9, 2007
• Docket: 14-06-00430-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 9, 2007

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 9, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-06-00430-CR

JUAN JOSEPH ROSILEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 183rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 985474

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Juan Joseph Rosilez appeals a conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child^[1] on the ground that the trial court denied his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process by refusing to permit the testimony of the complainant=s brother to contradict the testimony of the complainant.  However, to preserve an issue for appeal, the complaining party must make a specific request or objection and obtain a ruling.^[2]  Additionally, the point of error on appeal must comport with the objection made at trial.^[3]  Here, because appellant failed to assert at any time during the trial that the exclusion of this testimony was a denial of his constitutional right to present a defense or to compulsory process, appellant has not preserved that complaint for our review.  Accordingly, his sole point of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/        Richard H. Edelman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed January 9, 2007.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Edelman.

Do not publish C Tex.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

---

^[1]           A jury found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at life in confinement.  

^[2]           See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A);  Buchanan v. State, ___S.W.3d___, ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Gonzalez v. State, 714 S.W.2d 19, 25 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1985, no pet.) (holding appellant=s failure to object that his right to compulsory process had been violated waived the issue on appeal).

^[3]           Sorto v. State, 173 S.W.3d 469, 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2982 (2006).