Joshua Cholico Galindo v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Second Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment adjudicating Joshua Cholico Galindo guilty and revoking his probation. The court held that the trial court had no sua sponte duty under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.30(a) to appoint an interpreter for Galindo’s defense-witness mother, and that Galindo forfeited his hearsay argument by failing to present an admissibility exception to the trial court.

Holdings

1. Article 38.30(a) did not impose an independent sua sponte duty on the trial court to appoint an interpreter for Galindo's mother, a defense witness, absent a timely request. Because Galindo did not request an interpreter, the trial court did not err.
2. Galindo forfeited his appellate challenge to the exclusion of his testimony because, after the State objected on hearsay grounds, he did not respond or argue that a hearsay exception applied in the trial court. The trial court therefore did not commit reversible error in sustaining the objections.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.30(a) required the trial court to appoint an interpreter for Galindo's defense-witness mother sua sponte when Galindo did not request one.
2. Whether Galindo preserved and established error when the trial court sustained hearsay objections to his testimony about conversations with his attorney.

Disposition

affirmed