Opinion
No. 14-02-00283-CR
Affirmed and Opinion filed February 13, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 180th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 880,225
Panel consists of Chief Justice BRISTER and Justices YATES and HUDSON.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jonathan Ray Zamudio, was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. He entered a plea of guilty, and after a presentence investigation hearing ("PSI hearing"), the trial court assessed punishment at seven years' imprisonment. For the first time on appeal, appellant contends the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We affirm. At the plea hearing, the trial court properly admonished appellant regarding the effect of his plea. When entering his plea, appellant also waived jury determination of punishment, and requested that a presentence investigation report ("PSI report") be prepared. The trial court found evidence of guilt sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt, but withheld a finding of guilt. The trial court also granted appellant's request for a PSI report, and cautioned appellant to apprise the investigating officer of any evidence he wanted included in the report. According to appellant, subsequent to his plea but before the PSI hearing, the trial court compelled appellant to give a statement regarding the underlying offense to a probation officer without his counsel present. Because a State agent interviewed him at a "critical stage" of the adversarial proceeding without his counsel present and thereafter appellant's statement was used in assessing punishment, appellant argues the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Appellant, however, has failed to provide us with a record substantiating these allegations or demonstrating that he ever objected to the court's consideration of the presentence investigation report. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a) (requiring specific objection and ruling by the trial court as prerequisite to presenting complaint for appellate review). Having presented no issue for our review, appellant's sole point of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 13, 2003.
Appellant alleges the interview occurred at a "critical stage" in the proceeding because he failed to receive probation nor the minimum punishment.