NO. 07-07 -010 0-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A AU GU ST 11, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ RICHARD STEV E PROVE NCIO, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 18 1 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; NO . 178 18- B; H ON ORABLE JOH N BOAR D, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellant , Richard Ste v e Provencio, app eals a judgme nt ent ered o n a jury v erdict convicting him of

the of fens e o f U n la wf ul Posse ssion of a Firearm by a Felon. Byhis appeal , app ell ant c halle n ges th e tri a l co u rt ’s ru lin g ad m it ti n g te st im o n ia l e vide n ce reg ardin g an e xtran eo us o ffens e c om mi tt ed b y a pp el l an t. W e affi r m.According to Jon es’ s t e s t im ony, he un dersto od a ppe llant’s use of the te rm 1 “roache s” to re fer to the left- ov er por ti on of a mar ij uana c ig arette. 2 Backg ro und On Feb ruary 4, 20 06, two Am arillo Police Of f icers observed app ellant ’s vehicle pass at a high rate o f

spee d. During the of

f icers’ pursuit of

a ppe llant, th ey obse rv ed h im com mit addi ti onal traff icv iol ati ons. O n thi s b asi s, the o ff ic ers t ur ned on thei r ov er head l ig hts and pulled app ellantov er. Off ic er Jo nes w alk ed to the dr iv er ’s side w ind ow and made c ontact w it h appel lan t. At t hat t ime, Jo nes tes ti fied th at he smell ed a v er y st ro ng odor

of bur nt mar ij uana c oming from the v ehi cl e. Jones ’s par tner , M arti n M org an, t est ified tha t h e a lso smell ed a marijua na odor that Mo rg an desc ri bed as bei ng “fresh, ” li ke the mar ij uana ha d j ustbeen smok ed. Jones then as ked appel lan t abo ut t he s mell and appel lan t sta ted that itmustbe c o m in g f ro m h is b re a t h
. Jo n e s re m o ve d a p p e ll a n tf ro m h is ve h ic le a n d p a tt e d h im d o wn for w eap ons. Duri ng the cou rse of Jone s’s weapo ns search , he a sked a ppe llant if there w as anythi ng i n the v ehi cl e tha t J ones needed to be aware of. Appel lan t t old Jo nes that there w ere “ some roache s i n the asht ra y .” J ones then pla ced appel lan t i n the bac ks eat 1 of the pat ro l car

so thatthe off ic ers c oul d per form a s earch of appell ant’ s v ehi cl e. In per forming the search of ap pel lan t’ s v ehi cl e, Jones loo ked under the dr iv er ’s se at and s aw the butt of a g un s ti ck ing out from under the seat. The g un w as lat er i denti fied as a 9mm Smi th an d W ess on. Before Jones g av e any i ndi cat io n t h a t h e had dis cov ered a g un i n appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e, ap pel lan t t old Officer M org an th at t here was a g un unde r theU nle ss othe rw is e i ndi cat ed, a ll furth er referenc es to r ule s a re to the Texas Rul es 2 of Ev ide nce. 3 cons ole of the v ehi cl e. As a re sul t of the dis cov er y of the g un, a ppel lan t was pla ced under ar re st for unl awful pos ses si on of a firear m. Jo nes cont inu ed to se arch the v ehi cl e and dis cov ered th re e mar ij uana “ ro aches ” in the asht ra y . Subs eq uentl y , app ell ant was ind icted for U nla wful Pos ses si on of a F irear m by a F elo n. At tr ial , appel lan t obj ect ed to the Stat e’s offer of anyev ide nce re g ardin g mar ij uana. In a hear ing hel d out si de of the pre sence of the jur y , app ell ant o bje cte d tha t t his w as ev ide nce of an extraneous offense that is ina dmis si ble under Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce 404 and 403
. The State respon ded thatthis evi den ce provided th e “ s o le basis” for Jone s’s

2 search of t he v ehi cl e. The tr ial cour t ov er ru led appel lan t’ s o bje cti on and ex pla ine d tha t t he ev ide nce w as probati v e of the off icer ’s st a te of mi nd and w hy Jo nes act ed as he d id. Fol low ing the cour

t’ s r uli ng , t he St ate i ndi cat ed th at i t i ntended to offer the act ual mar ij uana or pho tos of

the m arijuan a into ev iden ce. Af ter hea ring the State ’s a rg u m e nt, th e cou rt sus tai ned app ell ant’ s R ule 403 obj ect ion to the o ffer of the a ctu al marijua na or phot os of the mar ij uana t hat was dis cov ered i n appel lan t’ s veh icl e . At ap pel lan t’ s req uest , w hen Jones testi fied about the m ar ij uana, the tr ial courtinst ru cte d the j ur y thatthey

w ere notto consid er the e v iden ce regarding the ma rijuana for t he p urpo se of dete rmining app ellant ’s g uil t or i nnoce nce, but “t o understa nd the sta te of mi nd of the officer and w hy he d id w hat he di d.” On ap peal , app ell ant c ontends thatthe tr ial courtabused its disc re ti on byadmi tti ng the testim onia l e v iden ce regarding th e prese nce of m arijuan a in app ellant ’s v ehicle while4

ru li ng thatthe admis si on of phy si cal ev ide nce of the mar ij uana woul d be more preju dic ial than probati v e. By

hi s b ri ef, appel lan t c hal len g es the t ri al cour t’ s r uli ng admi tting t he tes ti monial ev ide nce under both r ule 404( b) and ru le 403. Standa rd of Rev iew As appel lan t’ s is sue chal len g es the tr ial cour t’ s deci si on to admit cer tai n ev ide nce, we m u s t re vie w t h e c o u rt ’s ru li n g t o d e t e rm in e if t h e co u rta b u s e d it s d is c re t io n . Mo zo n v. Sta te, 9 91 S. W .2d 841 , 846 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 1999 ). A rev iew ing court shou ld notrev erse a tr ial j udg e’s dec is ion w hose ru li ng i s w it hin the z one of reaso nabl e di sag re ement. Green v . St ate, 934 S. W .2d 92, 102 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
. A t ri al cour t’ s r uli ng on a dmis si bil ity shoul d notbe d is tur bed s impl y bec ause the appel lat e cour t mig ht ha v e dec ide d a q uest ion differe ntl y . Mo ntg omery v . St ate, 810 S. W .2d 3 72, 3 91 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1990) ( op. o n reh’g). If ev iden ce is adm issible for any purpose , the trial cou rt ' s a c t io n in adm itting it i s not e rror , reg ardle ss of the reason g iv en by the tr ial co urt for

admi tti ng the ev ide nce. Sew ell v . St ate, 629 S. W .2d 4 2, 45 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1982)
. Rul e 404( b) Rul e 404( b) embodi es the e sta bli shed pr inc ipl e tha t a defendant notbe t ri ed for col lat eral cr imes or

for bei ng a cr imi nal g enerall y . Rus sel l v . St ate, 113 S. W .3d 5 30, 5 35 (Tex .App. –For

t W orth 20 03, p et. re f’d)
. As a re sul t, ev ide nce of extraneous offenses is not a dm issible at the g uilt-inno cence pha se of trial to prov e tha t a defend antacted in confor mity

w it h hi s c haract er

by co mmitt ing the charg ed o f fe n se. I d. Howev er , an extraneous offense has nonch aract er-c onformi ty re lev ance w here i t has any tend ency

to5

ma ke the ex istence of

a fact of conse quence to the dete rmina tion of t he case m ore or less probabl e tha n i t w oul d be w it hout the ev ide nce. Id. Thus, ev ide nce of extraneous offenses maybe a dmis si ble for p ur poses othe r than charact er conformity , such as proof of motiv e, oppor tuni ty , i ntent , preparati o n , p lan, k now led g e, i denti ty , or abs ence of mist ake or acc ide nt. R ule 404( b)
. The cl ear lan g uag e of t he r ule i ll ust ra tes thatthe li st of purpo ses is not int ended t o be ex haust iv e. Ga rci a v . St ate, 201 S. W .3d 6 95, 7 03 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) . The Stat e, as the proponentof the e v ide nce, bears t he burden of es tabl is hin g i ts admis si bil ity . Rus sel l, 113 S.W .3d a t 535
. In C hr is topher

v . St ate, 833 S. W .2d 5 26 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) , t he C our t of C ri minal Appeal s h eld ev ide nce that appel lan t was dr iv ing a s tol en c ar w hen he w as ar re ste d was not admis si ble . Id. at 52 9. In t hat c ase, the tr ial co urt admi tted ev ide nce of the extraneous off e n se b e ca use ites tabl is hed t he officers’ probabl e c ause to s top a nd ar re st the appel lan t. See id. The C our t of C ri minal Appea ls note d tha t “
. . . the S tate i s e nti tl ed to put o n ev ide nce of w hat o cc ur re d i mmediat ely before a n d a fte r the commi ss ion of an of fense , if t hate v iden ce is relev antto som eth ing at issue in the ca se, an d is not inh eren tly p reju d ic ia l. ” I d
. ( c it in g Co u re tv. S t a t e , 7 9 2 S
. W
. 2 d 1 0 6 (T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 9 0 ); Ma d d o x v. Stat e, 68 2 S. W .2d 5 63 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1985) ; G ast on v . St ate, 574 S.W .2d 1 20 (Te x .Crim.Ap p . 1 9 7 8 )) (emp hasis in original). The Court explained that , w hile evidence tha t t h e c a r w as stole n w as relevant to th e de term inatio n of proba ble cau se, be cause probabl e c ause w as not conte ste d in the ca se, thi s e xtraneous offense ev ide nce w as not relevant to an issue in the ca s e . S e e id. Th erefore, th e Court he ld tha t the trial court’s admis si on of thi s e v ide nce w as er ro r. Se e i d.6

In the pres ent cas e, the State res ponded to appell ant’ s objecti on to the admis si on of any ev iden ce regarding his p o s s e s s ion of marijua na b y

arguing tha t this evidence prov ide d the “sol e basis ” for Jones ’s searc h of the v ehi cl e. W e const ru e this arg ument as cont endi ng thatthe ev ide nce of appell ant’ s p oss ess ion of marijua na was neces sar y for t he Stat e to est abl is h that Jones had probabl e caus e to search appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e. The tr ial cour t, in o verruling appel lan t’ s o bje cti on to the tes ti monial ev ide nce, st ated that the ev ide nce w as probati v e of t he off ic er ’s sta te of mi nd and ex pla ine d w hy he act ed as he di d. Howev er , bec ause the l eg ali ty of Jones ’s searc h of

appell ant’ s v ehi cl e w as not c ontes ted by appel lan t, the ev ide nce of ap pel lan t’ s p oss ess ion of marijua na was not rele v ant t o any is sue in the c ase and t he tr ial co urt’ s a dmis si on of thi s e v ide nce cons ti tuted an a buse of dis creti on. See i d. W e s ust ain appel lan t’ s first is sue. Rul e 403 Havi ng foun d tha t the t rial cou rt a buse d its d iscretion in overruling a ppe llant’s rule 404 (b) objectio n to th e evidence of his marijuan a po ssessio n , we n e e d not ad dress appel lan t’ s i ss ue rela ti ng to his r ule 403 obj ect ion
. Harm An alysi s Howev er , ev en after

fin d in g t h at t he tr ial co urt er re d i n admi tti ng the extraneous offense ev ide nce, w e mustdete rmi ne th e effectof the er ro neous admi ss ion
. Er ro r in the adm ission of

ev iden ce of

an extraneo us of

fense constitu tes no ncon stitutio nal error thatis subj ect to har m anal y si s. Boy d v . Stat e, 899 S.W .2d 3 71, 3 75- 76 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th Di st. ] 1995, no w ri t)
. W e are to disreg ard nonc onst it uti onal er ro r that does not a ffectthe7

subs tanti al ri g hts of the d efendant. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2( b)
. A subst anti al ri g ht i s a ffect ed w hen the error had a substa ntial an d injurious e f fect or inf luen ce in det ermin ing the jury ’s v erdict. R uss ell, 1 1 3 S .W .3d at 549 (c it ing Ki ng v . St ate, 953 S. W .2d 2 66, 2 71 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997) ). In deter mini ng w hether the admis si on of t est imony of an extraneous offe n se w as har mf ul to t he defendant, w e are to consi d e r ev er ythi ng i n the record, i ncl udi ng the tes ti mony

and physi cal ev ide nce admitted for the jur y ’s co nside ra tion, t he nat ure of the ev ide nce su p p o rt in g the v erdict, the c haract er of the e rror

and how

the er ro r mig ht be cons ide red wit h o th er

ev ide nce, the jur

y i nst ru cti ons, the Stat e’s theo ry of the c ase, any defensi v e the or ies , and cl osi ng arg umen ts
. M o ra les v . St ate, 32 S. W .3d 8 62, 8 67 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. W e are not to ask w hether the j ur y reache d the proper

resul t, but ra th e r whe th e r th e ju ro rs were ab le to pro p e rly ap p ly th e la w to th e f a c t s i n r e a ch in g a v erdict. Chri sto pher

v. State, 851 S.W .2d 318, 320 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 1993, w ri t ref’d)
. The proces s for

as ses si ng har m due to t he er ro neous admi ss ion of ev ide nce is to is ola te t he er ro r and al l of its effect s a nd as k w h e th e r a r a ti onal tr ier of fact mi g ht ha v e reache d a dif feren t result if

t he error a nd its e f

fects had n ot occurred . Id. If ov erw helm ing ev iden ce dis si pates the er ro r’ s e ffectupon the j ur y ’s functi on to the extent that the e rror d id not cont ri bute to t he v erdict, then the e rror i s h ar mles s. Id. The ev ide nce at i ss ue i n the presentca se wa s Jo nes and M org an’ s t est imony re g ardin g appel lan t’ s p oss ess ion of marijua na. Dur ing di re ct ex a m ina ti on by the Stat e, Jone s testif ied as follows:8

[Prosec utor

]: W hen you went u p to the c ar , w hat d id he do? [ J o n e s ] : He ro ll e d d o wn h is win d o w. [Prosec utor

]: And w hen he ro ll ed dow n the w ind ow , di d you not ic e anythi ng unu sual? [Jo nes] : Y es. I smel led the odor of bur nt mar ij uana c oming from i nsi de of the v ehi cl e. [Prosec utor

]: Now , y ou said yo u notic ed th e odor of bur nt mar ij uana. D ur ing – dur ing y our ti mes as a pol ic e off ic er , hav e y ou recei v ed train ing and then jus t on -t h e -f iel d ex per ien ce as to de tecti ng the smel l of cer tai n ty pes of narco tics? [Jo nes] : Y es, I hav e. * * * * [Prosec utor

]: W hen you s ay y ou smel led the smel l of burni ng mar ij uana – or burn t ma rijuana , w as it com ing – or could you tell if it was com ing from w ithin the v ehicle o r from his clothing or could you tell? [Jon es]: I cou ldn’t te ll. [Prose cuto r]: Okay. W as it a strong smell or a faint sm ell? [J o n e s] : I t was very stro n g. [P ros ec ut or

]: A nd b as ed o n th at , w ha t di d y ou s ay t o hi m? [Jo nes] : I as ked him about the o d o r thatI smel led – c oming from i nsi de of the v ehi cl e. [ P ro s e c u t o r] : A n d wh a td id h e sa y? [Jo nes] : H e s aid thati t mus t be comi ng from hi s b re ath. [The C our

t]: At thi s t ime, l adi es and g entl emen, l et me jus t i nst ru ct y ou w it h re g ard to the e v ide nce that y ou’ ve h eard and that y ou w il l hear aboutthe marijua na, you’ re to cons ide r that not for the pur pose of deter mini ng g uil t or inn ocenc e of w hat the D efendant’ s c harg ed w it h i n thi s c ase, but to understa nd th e s tate of mind of the off ic er and w hy he d id w hat h e di d. * * * * [Prosec utor

]: Oka y . Onc e you s mell narcot ic s c oming from a v ehi cl e – som eth ing that you recogniz e to be n arcotics, are y ou a ble to then search the v ehicle for those narcotics? [J on es ]: Y es , I am . * * * *9

[Prosec utor

]: W hen – w hen he – w hen y ou g ot him out of t he c ar and sta rt ed to do that[pl ace him in the o ff ic er ’s patrol car ], d id h e s a y a nythi ng el se to y ou a bou t the narcotics? [Jo nes] : As I w as patti ng him dow n I as ked him if there was anythi ng i n the v ehicle I nee ded t o know abou t, an d he mad e the comm entthatthere were s o m e ro a c h e s in t h e a s h t ra y. At t his poi nt, the Stat e q uest ion ed J ones re g ardin g the meanin g of the t er m “ ro aches ” and Jones tes ti fied th at i t i s a sl ang referenc e to the l eft-ov er por ti on of a marijua na c ig arette. Fol low ing thi s li ne of q uest ion ing , Jones tes ti fied about the dis cov er y of t he g un unde r the dr iv er ’s se at of appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e. Tow ard the co ncl usi on of J ones’ s d irectex aminat ion , Jone s testif ied as follows: [Prose cuto r]: Now , did y ou cont inue t o look in the v ehicle for the n arcotics? [Jo nes] : Y es, I did
. [ P ro s e c u t o r] : A n d d id yo u f in d a n y? [Jo nes] : Y es, I did
. [Prose cuto r]: W here did y ou f ind th e na rcotics? [ J o n e s ] : I n t h e a s h t ra y. [Prosec utor

]: Is that w here he tol d you th at t he roache s were? [Jo nes] : Y es, he d id. [ P ro s e c u t o r] : W h a td id yo u f in d in t h e a s h t ra y e xa ct ly? [Jo nes] : There w ere two – act ual ly there w ere three blu nts
. T wo of them w ere roll ed i n c ig ar

paper – or not blunts , I’m sor ry – ro aches that w ere roll ed in cig ar pap ers and one w as rolled in regular cig arett e pa per. Sub sequen t to the abo v e testim ony, the Sta te of fered picture s of

the m arijuan a foun d in the ashtray fo r adm ission into ev iden ce. App e lla nt again objected and the trial court sus tai ned t he obj ect ion
. Off ic er M org an te sti fied th at he al so smel led the marijua na odor10

comi ng from t he v ehi cl e. Mo rg an desc ri bed the odor as smel li ng “fresh, ” li ke the mar ij uana had j ustbeen smok ed. Dur ing cl osi ng arg uments , t he St ate a g ain referenc ed appe ll ant’ s p oss ess ion of marijua na. The Stat e arg ued t hat, This man, Ri chard Prov enci o, l et me sug g estto you i s a m a n tha t has no re ga rd fo r t h e la w. * * * * Here’s a guy

in Sept em ber of

200 1 ge t s a fo u r- year prison sente nce for a drug of fense , a secon d-de gree drug of fense , serv es part of his fo u r ye a rs, g ets out on parole , s er v es the restof the four y ears, and w it hin si x

months i s d r i v i ng d ow n th e s tree ts o f ou r t ow n at7 0 to 8 0 mi l es an h ou r , 12 :0 0 a. m. i n t h e m o r n i n g , w i t h t h e s me l l o f m a r ij u a n a fi l l i n g h i s c a r , m a rijua na – smok ed- dow n mar ij uana ci g arettes and blu nts in his asht ra y , and a l oaded wea p o n di re ct ly un d e rn e a th th e se a t whe re he ’s d rivin g. Later i n c los ing arg uments , t he St ate a g ain referenc ed appe ll ant’ s p o s s e s si on of mar ij uana to refute appel lan t’ s c hal len g e to w hether he know ing ly

posses sed the firear m. The S tate arg ued, That al one pro ves he h ad c are, c ust ody , and co ntrol of that g un. . . . w hy did n’the fol low

thatw it h, becaus e my g ir lfri end l eft iti n the ca r becau se she took i t t o and from wor k .
. . w hy di dn’ t he tel l him that? Be caus e i t’ s n ot t ru e.

. . . He als o sai d, I’ v e g ot the ro aches in the asht ra y w hic h tur ned out to be tr ue. He knew

aboutthos e too
.The Stat e’s cl osi ng arg ument adv ances the theor y that iti s a ppel lan t’ s c haract er 3 to com mi t crime an d tha t he act ed in acco rdan ce w ith tha t charact er on th e night in q uest ion
. Cl ear ly , t his is prec is ely the sor t of chara cte r confor mity

ev ide nce that ru le 404 w as de signed to prevent. Ho w ever, as add ressed b elow, ap pellan t failed to assert a tim ely obje ction to the St ate ’s arg um entand , the refore, an y error or harm cause d by the Stat e’s cl osi ng arg ument was w aiv ed. 11 W h il e we d o n o tco n d o n e t h e S t a t e ’s cl o s in g a rg u m e n t , a p p e ll a n t fa il e d t o p re s e rve 3 error in this regard beca use he failed to obje ct. " [A] de fend ant 's fa ilure to object to a jury a rg u m e n t
. . . fo rfe it s h is ri gh tt o co m p la in a b o u tt h e a rg u m e n to n a p p e a l. " Co c k re ll v. Stat e, 93 3 S. W .2d 7 3, 89 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) . Con si der ing onl y

the proper ly

prese rv ed error

rela ti ng to the t ri al cour t’ s a dmis si on of Jones and Mo rg an’ s t est imony of appel lan t’ s poss ess ion of m ar ij uana, w e concl ude t hat the a dmis si on of thi s e xtraneous offense ev ide nce w as not ha rmful to ap pel lan t. As a p p e ll a n t ’s so le d e fe n s ive t h e o ry wa s t h a th e d id n o tkn o win gl y p o s s e s s t h e f ire a rm , we find th e tes ti mony

of Off ic er

M org an, t hat a ppel lan t to ld h im thatthere was a g un i n the v ehicle b efore Of

f icer Jones h ad in any way in dicate d tha t to be the ca se, to be p articularly com pelling. Th is ev iden ce strongly supp orts the v erdict an d ne ga t e s app ellant ’s sole de fe n s i v e t h e o r

y . A s a re s u l t , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s g uil t w as ov er w hel ming
. In ad dit ion , t he tr ial co urt di d i nst ru ct the j ur y that, as t o the ev ide nce of the marijua na, “ y ou’ re to cons ide r that not for the pur pose of deter mini ng gui ltor i nnoce nce of w hat t he D efendant’ s c harg ed w it h i n thi s c ase . . . .” C onside rin g t h e t o tal ity of the proceed ing s, w e c oncl ude t hat t he er ro neous admi ss ion of ev ide nce tha t appell ant poss ess ed mar ij uana di d nothav e a s ubst anti al affecton t he v erdict.12 Con cl usi on Beca use w e concl ude that the tri al cour t’ s e rroneous admi ss ion of ev ide nce of an extraneous offense w as har mles s, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
Do not p ubl is h.