Opinion
No. 14-05-00491-CR
Opinion filed May 16, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 230th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1020840. Affirmed.
Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, EDELMAN, and FROST.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Aubrey Dale Fontenot appeals a conviction for robbery on the grounds that the trial court erroneously denied appellant's: (1) motion for instructed verdict; and (2) right to confront and cross-examine the complainant. We affirm. Appellant's first issue challenges the denial of his motion for instructed verdict because there was no evidence that the complainant, Ivan Neri, was threatened and placed in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. An appeal of the denial of a motion for instructed verdict is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support appellant's conviction. Canales v. State, 98 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). This requires the Court to view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and then determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the complainant was threatened or placed in fear of imminent bodily injury or death beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. In this case, Socorro Ramirez testified that appellant entered the restaurant where the complainant was employed, pointed his towel-covered hand at her and Neri, and demanded that they open the cash register. Appellant then took $150 from the cash register. Ramirez thought appellant would shoot her; she felt threatened by appellant and testified that Neri was just as scared as she was. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury could have found that, by pointing his towel-covered hand at Neri and Socorro and demanding money from the cash register, appellant threatened and placed Neri in fear of imminent bodily injury or death by conveying an impression that he held a weapon inside the towel and would harm them if they did not comply with his demand. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for instructed verdict, and appellant's first issue is overruled. Appellant's second issue contends that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and cross-examination was violated by the complainant's absence at the guilt/innocence phase of the trial. A defendant waives any complaint on appeal concerning his constitutional right to cross-examine and confront witnesses if he does not lodge a proper and timely objection on that ground at trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Jimenez v. State, 32 S.W.3d 233, 235 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526, 536 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Because appellant failed to object at trial that his right to confrontation and cross-examination was violated, he failed to preserve any such complaint for our review. Therefore, appellant's second issue is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
A jury found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at 60 years confinement and a $10,000 fine.