Cristian Orellana v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 177th District Court of Harris County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued October 13, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NOS. 01-10-00389-CR & 01-10-00390-CR CRISTIAN ORELLANA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 177th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case Nos. 1195734 & 1195735 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Cristian Orellana, pleaded guilty to the offenses of aggravated robbery1 and injury to a child,2 and the trial court assessed his punishment at 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 29.02, 29.03 (Vernon 2011). Trial court cause number 1195734; appellate cause number 01-10-00389-CR. confinement for life for both offenses. In his sole point of error, appellant contends that article 42.12, section 9 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure3 is facially unconstitutional. We affirm. Background Appellant pleaded guilty to the offenses of aggravated robbery and injury to a child, and the trial court reset the case for a presentence investigation ( PSI ) hearing to assess punishment. The trial court subsequently found appellant guilty, and commenced the PSI hearing. During the PSI hearing, the State introduced the PSI report into evidence. introduction of this report. Appellant stated that he had no objections to the After the PSI hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant to life in prison for both offenses. Waiver In his sole point of error, appellant argues that article 42.12, section 9 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is facially unconstitutional because it permits 2 See id. § 22.04(a) (Vernon 2011). Trial court cause number 1195735; appellate cause number 01-10-00390-CR. 3 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 9 (Vernon Supp. 2011). 2 the use of testimonial statements in a presentence investigation report ( PSI ) against an accused in violation of the Sixth Amendment s Confrontation Clause.4 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that an appellant may not raise for the first time on appeal a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute. Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). In so holding, the court explained that statutes are presumed to be constitutional until it is determined otherwise and [t]he State and the trial court should not be required to anticipate that a statute may later be held to be unconstitutional. Id. Here, appellant concedes that he did not assert in the trial court his facial constitutional challenge to article 42.12, section 9. All of the cases that appellant cites in support of his attempt to raise his challenge for the first time on appeal precede Karenev. Accordingly, we hold that appellant has waived his challenge. Id.; see also Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 179 80 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that defendant did not preserve Confrontation Clause objection by failing to clearly articulate objection in trial court). We overrule appellant s sole point of error.5 4 U.S. CONST. amend. VI. 5 Moreover, we note that even if we were to consider the merits of appellant s point, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a PSI is used in a noncapital case in which the defendant has elected to have the trial court determine sentencing, there is no violation of a defendant s Sixth Amendment rights to 3 Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Terry Jennings Justice Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). confrontation. Stringer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 42, 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004)). 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
