NO. 07-06 -019 8-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 B JU NE 11, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ T OMAS CARREON ROMERO, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 51, 991- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellantTo ma s Carr eon Rome ro app eals f rom h is convi ction for unlawfu lly car ry ing a weapon o n l ic ensed premis es and his c o u rt -a ss ess ed puni shmentand suspe n d e d sentenc e of ten y ears i mpri sonment
. Vi a three i ss ues, appel lan t c hal len g es th e l eg al s uffi c i en cy

o f t he e v i de nc e to s up po rt hi s c on v i cti on . W e affi r m.See T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 46. 02 (Verno n 200 7). T his of fense occurred be fore 1 the S eptember

1, 2007 effecti v e dat e and thus , the offense herein is g ov er ned by the law in effectw hen t he offense w as commi tted. 2 Backg ro und By indictm ent , app e llant w as cha rg ed wi th inte ntion ally , knowing ly , or recklessly car ry ing on o r about his person a handg un on a premis es li cens ed or iss ued a per mit by the S tate of Tex as for the sale of alc ohol icbev erag es. F oll ow ing a pl ea of not g uil ty , t he 1 ma tter proce ede d to trial. The Stat e present ed th e tes ti mony of two Amar il lo pol ic e off ic ers. Officer Sc ott Cha ppel l tes ti fied th at on the nig ht of ap pel lan t’ s ar re st, the two condu cte d a “ ro uti ne bar chec k” of the Tres Amig os Bar in Amari ll o. Off ic er

Chappel l tes ti fied that he had be en to this esta blishm entman y times before, kno ws the m ana geme nt, a nd h ad o bserved the sale of alc ohol icbev erag es o n t h e p remis es. O v er obj ect ion , C happel l tes ti fied th at Tres Amig os is l ic ensed to sel l alc ohol icbev erag es in the S tate of Tex as. Cha ppel l sai d he and C or poral Mi chael C l a y Ra n dal l obser

v ed appe ll ant “ sta g g er ing towards his –or

towards a tr uck

i n a p ar ki ng ( si c) .” As the off ic ers walk ed to w ard appel lan t, he open ed the v ehi cl e’s door and re ached i n as i f he w ere c oncea li ng so methi ng or atte mp ting to retriev e som eth ing from its interior. He then “cam e ba ck out” of the vehicle and s hut t he door . Chap pel l tes ti fied he w as conc er ned t hen t hat a ppel lan t was attempt ing to or had re tr iev ed a w eapon o r w as tr y ing to re tr iev e or

co nceal so me ty pe of con traband.The pi sto l and mag az ine w ere ent ered i nto e v ide nce w it hout obj ect ion
. 2 3 W hen the of

f icers appro ache d a p p e llant, th ey not iced a stron g odo r of alcoho lic beverages on his brea th an d perso n, red and glassy eyes, and thathe sw ayed and spoke w it h sl ur re d speec h. Appel lan t w as ar re ste d for publ ic int ox ic ati on. The off ic ers then searched appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e i nci dent to his ar re st and found a l oaded . 9 mm pi sto l in the cent er co nsol e area. C happel l tes ti fied th at t his i s t he s ame a re a i nto w hic h he had 2 obse rv ed a ppe llant reach ing. H e f urthe r te stif ied app ellantwould have bee n able t o reach itw it hout mater ial ly

ch ang ing hi s p osi ti on. Appel lan t c onducted c ro ss -e x aminat ion on b oth o ff ic ers b ut present ed no other w itnesse s. Th e jury

foun d ap pellan t guilty as charged in the indictm ent . Th e cou rt ass e s s e d p u n i s h me n t a t t e n y e a rs i mp r i s o n me n t a n d a n $ 8 , 0 0 0 fi n e . Th e c o u rtthen sus pended appel lan t’ s sent ence and pl aced him on c ommunity su per v is ion
. Appel lan t ti mely fil ed hi s n oti ce of appeal
. Ana lysis By three point s o f

e rror, ap pellan t challen ges th e legal suf f iciency of

the evidence t o su p p o rth is co n vic t io n . In re vie win g i s s u e s o f le ga l s u f f ic ie n cy, a n a p p e ll a t e co u rtvie ws the e v ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict t o det er mine w hether , bas ed on that evidenc e a n d r e ason able inferen ces the ref rom, a rationa l jury could ha v e foun d ea ch ele ment of the offense bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. Swear ing en v . St ate, 101 S.W .3d 8 9, 95 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ; Con ner v. Sta te, 6 7 S .W .3d 192 , 197 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 1), citi ng Jack son v. Vi rgini a, 4 4 3 U
. S
. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S.Ct. 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 L
. E d
. 2 d 5 6 0 ( 1 9 7 9 )
. I f,The j ur y w as ins tr uct ed c oncer nin g the sta tutor y defini ti ons of the c ulp abl e mental 3 sta tes of int enti onal , k now ing and re ck le ss co nduct
. SeeTex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 6.03 (Verno n 20 03) (def ining each). 4 g iv en al l of the ev ide nce, a ra ti onal j ur y woul d nec ess ar il y

ente rt ain a reason abl e doubtof the d efendant’ s g uil t, due pro ce ss req uires that w e rev erse and order a j udg ment of acq uittal
. Swear

ing en, 101 S.W .3d a t 95, citi ng Nar vai z v. Sta te, 840 S.W .2d 4 15, 4 23 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) , cer t. denied, 507 U.S
. 975 , 113 S .Ct. 142 2, 12 2 L.E d.2 d 79 1 (199 3). Ci rc umsta n ti a l ev ide nce is as probati v e as di re ct ev ide nce in est abl is hin g g uil t, and ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce alo ne c an be suffici ent t o do so. Hooper v. Sta te, 214 S.W .3d 9 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) , citi ng Gu evar

a v . St ate , 152 S.W .3d 45, 49 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 4). P e n a l C o d e § 4 6
. 0 2 (a ) p ro vid e s t h a ta p e rs o n c o m m it s a n o f fe n s e i f h e in t e n t io n a ll y, know ing ly , or

reck les sl y

ca rr ies on o r about his person a handg un, i ll eg al kni fe, or cl ub. Und er Penal C ode § 46.02( c) , the offense is a felony of t he thi rd deg re e if commi tted on p re m is e s l ic e n s e d o r is s u e d a p e rm itb y t h e st a t e fo r t h e sa le o f a lc o h o li cb e ve ra ge s . T e x. Penal C ode An n. § 46.02( a) , 46. 02( c)( Ver non 200 3 ). Thus, the Stat e was re q uired to prove, beyond a reason able dou bt, tha t app ellant(1) knowingl y , inten tiona lly , or recklessly (2) carri ed o n or abo ut his pe rson (3) a han dgun (4) on a license d prem ises. Iss ue On e -

R equi site Mental

Sta te Appel lan t arg ues there is no ev ide nce he pos ses sed the h andg un w it h any of the re q uired cul pabl e mental sta tes
. He cont ends nothi ng shows he knew the h andg un was 3 prese nt in the conso le of the truck.5

Viewed in the light mostfavorable to the v erdict, th e evidence perm its a reason able inference appel lan t was the d ri v er and onl y

oc cupan t of the pic kup to w hic h he walk ed as he l eft the b ar . See Hooper , 214 S .W .3 d a t 1 6 (defini ng an i nferenc e as “ a c oncl usi on re ached by

co nsi der ing othe r facts and ded uci ng a l og ic al cons eq uence from t hem”)
. The tes ti mony

does not ass oci ate a n y o th e r person w it h the pi ck up. Off ic ers o bser v ed appel lan t as he w alk ed to the pic kup and ope ned i ts dr iv er ’s si de door
. Cha ppel l tes ti fied the e ng ine of the t ru ck w as ru nni ng . B o th o f f icers s aid appel lan t’ s a cti ons led them to bel iev e he w as about to dr iv e off i n the pi ck up. If appel lan t was dri v ing the pic kup w it h the .9 mm pis tol i n the co nsol e next t o the dr iv er ’s se at, he was car ry ing i t on or ab o u t h is p e rso n . The phrase “o n or aboutthe person” has been cons tr ued t o mean “ near by , c los e at hand” or w it hin su ch dis tanc e of the acc used that he c an reach itw it hout mate ria lly cha ng ing hi s p osi ti on. Courtn ey v. State, 424 S.W .2 d 440 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1968) ; W agner v. Sta te, 188 S.W . 100 1, 10 02 (1 916) ; Bur

ks v. Sta te, 693 S.W .2d 7 47, 7 51 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D ist .] 1 9 85, p et. th re f’d)
. The phrase “o n or about his perso n” has been deter mined to inc lud e the i nter ior of an aut omobil e. See Chr is ti an v . St ate, 686 S.W .2d 9 30, 9 33 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1985) (“ we think th at the ju ry

co uld reaso nab ly

infer app ellantw as un lawf ully ‘carry ing’ the nun -chucks f ro m th e fa ctth a t h e w a s fo u n d al o n e be h in d th e w h e e l o f an au to m o b i l e w h ich , t h o u gh parke d, w as runn ing”)
.As Chappel l phrased iton cross -e x aminat ion , “ the u pper hal f of [app ell ant’ s] body 4 w as lea nin g i nto t he v ehi cl e.” 6 T h e ju ry’ s inferen ce tha t app ellant ’s carry ing of the pistol was accom pan ied by a cul pabl e mental st ate was aid ed by the off ic e rs’ t e sti mony abouthi s a cti ons ins ide the pic kup after he opened the door. Chappel l sai d appell ant reac hed ins ide the v ehi cl e as the off ic ers a pproach e d
. C happel l als o s aid thatw hen he re ached appel lan t, he as ked 4 appel lan t “ w hat h e was re achi ng for i n the v ehi cl e, be caus e i t app eared as thou g h i t was in respon se to ou r presence .” Cor poral Rol lan d tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t “l ooked around an d s aw [t he officers] as he reach ed h is pickup.” App ellantapp eare d surprised to see th e o f f ic ers and “imme diate ly re ached i n the cent er area of hi s p ic kup, i n the frontse at area. He w as sc uff li ng around. I mean, w e c oul dn’ t t ell w hat h e was doi ng , bec ause hi s d oor w as open an d he had l eaned in his tr uck .” R oll and furt her tes ti fied that as the of

ficers came clo ser , app ell ant “ finis hed w hat h e w as doi ng , and then he g ot ou t of the tr uck real q uic k, as thoug h he w as tr y ing to dis tanc e hims elf from the tr uck .” Rol lan d conc lud ed that, based on his ex per ience , the a ct io n s we re t h o s e o f a p e rs o n wh o wa s t ryi n g t o “c o n c e a l s o m e t h in g” o r “ re t ri e ve someth ing .” Al th o ug h the off ic ers c oul d notse e w hat a ppel lan t was doi ng i nsi de th e v e h i c l e , fro m t h e i r

d e s c r i p t i o n s o f h i s a ct i o n a n d t h e i r re a ct i o n s t o i t , a ra t i o n a l j u ror re asona bly coul d hav e conc lud ed that appel lan t w as g iv ing furti v e att enti on to so me i tem in the f ront seata rea of

h is p ickup as the two of f icers appro ache d him . W e be liev e the jury ra ti onal lyc o u l d i n fe r

t h a tt h e o bj e cto f a p p e l l a n t ’ s a tt e n t i o n w a s t h e l o a d e d
. 9 m m p i s tol fo u n d i n t h e c o n s o l e n e xt t o t h e d r i v e r’ s s eat. Se e Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 16. I tSeeT e x . A l c o . B e v . C o d e A n n . § 1 1
. 4 9 ( a ) ( V e r n o n 1 9 7 9 ) ( c o n t a i n i n g s am e 5 defini ti on) ; Ter

ry v. Sta te , 8 7 7 S
. W
. 2 d 6 8 , 6 9 - 7 0 ( Te x . A p p . – H o u s t o n [ 1 D i s t
. ] 1 9 9 4 , no st pet .) (approving use o f

Alcoho lic Bev erage Code def inition in crimina l prosecut ion).

7 neces sar il y

foll ows t hat a ppel lan t woul d hav e been aw are of the presenc e of the handg un. Again, vi ewi ng the evidence in the light mostf a vo rable to the verdict, w e f ind legally suffici ent e v ide nce suppo rt s a findi ng , beyond a re aso n a b le doubt, t hat a ppel lan t inten tiona lly , knowing ly or recklessly

carried the p istol on or abo ut his pe rson. W e overrule his first is sue. Iss ue T wo - Par ki ng Lot as Par t of Licens ed Pr

em is es By his secon d issue, appe llant conten ds tha t beca use the Sta te prese nte d legally ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce the bar’ s park ing lot is “di re ctl y or indi re ctl y

under the control of the same p erson, ” itf a ile d to prov e tha t app ell ant was unl awfully ca rr y ing a ha ndg un on a li cens ed premis es. T he jury w as instructe d tha t the term “pre m ise s” mea ns “the ground s and all b u i l d i n g s , v e h i c l e s , a n d a p p u rt e n a n c e s p e rt a i n i n g t o t h e g ro u n d s , i n c l u d i n g a n a d j acent premis es if they

are di re ctl y

or i ndi re ctl y

under the cont ro l of the s ame person. ” 5 T h e of f ice rs’ te st im o n y ind ica te s t h e ba r’s pa rki n g are a is in f ro n t o f t h e bu ild in g. As Rol lan d descr ibe d the scene as the of ficers f irst saw

appell ant, he s aid , “ that front door o f t h e b u il d in g h a s a si d e wa lkt h a tru n s a lo n g t h e b u il d in g, a n d t h e n t h e re ’s b a s ic a ll y a parking lo t. T here ’s single car parking all along, and th en so me peo ple often dou ble pa rkAppel lan t arg ued t he officers c oul d hav e had no ind e p endent know led g e of the 6 bar ’s status as a li cens ed premi ses , and of necess ity

their testi mony

rel ied on a n oral or w ri tten sta tement of another
. After the p ro sec utor el ic it ed te sti mony

from t he officers o f the ir fam iliarity

w ith the bar and its operat ion, b ased on the ir pri or inspect ions, th e trial court overruled app ellant ’s objectio n. W e nee d not add ress app ellant ’s argume nt on app eal in 8 behi nd c ars t here on the front row . I t s eemed l ik e the w hol e frontrow w as full, bec ause the pic kup that [appel lan t] w as w alk ing to w as par ked basi cal ly behi nd anot her

v ehi cl e.” Appel lan t arg ues the S tate w as re q uired to produce evid e n ce the par ki ng l ot was direct ly or i ndi re ctl y

under the cont ro l of the same person. That w oul d be tr ue i f the St ate w ere s how ing appel lan t c ar ri ed th e hand gun o n p re mis es adj acentto the l ic ensed premis es. As w e see the evi dence , the jur y could hav e concl uded the park ing lot or area in f ront of the bar, in w hich appe llant’s v ehicle was parke d, was a part of the bar prem ises, not a dja centpremis es. As defined, “p re mis es” means “ the g ro unds and al l bui ldi ng s, ... .” Tex . Al co. Bev . C ode A n n . § 1 1.49( a) ( Ver non 197 9) . Thus , i n Richar dson v. State, 823 S.W .2d 7 73, 7 76 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 20 02, n o pet .) , the cour t found t he par ki ng l ot of a c onv eni ence sto re to be par t of the “p re mis es” pursuant to Sect ion 11.49( a) of the Tex as Al cohol icBev erag e C ode. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. Iss ue T hr ee - Bar as Licens ed Pr

em is es Appel lan t’ s thi rd iss ue chal len g es the l eg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce present ed at tr ial to est abl is h that T re s Amig os is a premis es li cens ed or is sued a per mit by the Stat e of Te x as for the sa le of

alcoho lic bev erages. At trial, the of f icers’ testim ony tha t the bar is a l ic en s e d p re mi s e s w a s a d mi tt e d o v e r a p p e l l a n t ’ s o bj e ct i o n t h a t t h e t e s t i mo n yw as hearsay and v iol ated his Si xth A mendment r ig ht of c onfronta ti on. 6suppo rtof his tr ial obj ect ion
. 9

On ap pea l, app ellan t reiterate s his arg um entthe te stimo ny w as inad missible hea rsay . Acknowledging that , by rule, i nad missible hea rsayadm itted w ithou t obje ction is not d eni ed probati v e v alu e merel y becau se it is hearsay , Tex . R . Ev id. 802, he c ontends ina dmis si ble hearsay

admi tted ov er obj ect ion shoul d be deni ed probati v e v alu e. Appel lan t ci tes us to no i nst ance in w hic h thi s c ontent ion has been acc epted in a c ri minal ca se, and w e find none. W e reje ct it , bec ause itr uns count er to the well -e sta bli shed preceptthatan app ellate court, in a legal su f f iciency an alysi s, consid ers a ll th e evidence adm itted before the j ur y , bot h tha t admi tted proper ly and that admitted improper ly
. The C our t of C ri minal Appeal s e x pla ine d i n Mi les v. Sta te , 918 S.W .2d 511 , 513 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 6): W e f irst note that in re v iew ing the suffici ency of the e v ide nce, “ the a ppel lat e cour t mus t l ook at al l the ev ide nce, w hether proper ly or improper ly

admi tted .” Alexander v. State, 866 S.W .2d 1, 3 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1993 ), ce rt. den ied

, 511 U.S. 11 00, 114 S.Ct. 18 69, 128 L.Ed .2d 490 (1994 ). In t he ev ent a por ti on of the evidence w as er ro neous ly admi tted, the acc used mayco mplai n on appeal of suc h er ro r . T

hom as v. State, 753 S.W .2d 6 88, 6 95 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1988)
. The admis si on of inadmis si ble ev ide nce is co nsi dered tr ial er ro r and thus the proper

remedy is to rev erse the c onv icti on and re mand for a new tr ial
. See Beltr

an v . St ate, 728 S.W .2d 3 82, 3 89 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1987)
. But jurors d o not act ir ra ti onal ly i n tak ing su ch ev ide nce int o ac count , s inc e the y a re bo u n d to re c e i ve t h e la w f ro m th e tri a l ju d ge . Thom as, 753 S.W .2d a t 695. All ev iden ce w hich th e trial jud ge h as ruled ad missible may therefore be weig hed and consi dered bythe jur y , and a re v iew ing co urt i s o bli g ated to ass ess the jur

y 's factual findi ng s from thi s p erspecti v e. Id.Ch a p p e ll re sp o n d e d po sit ivel y to t h e que st io n a sk in g if it was hi s “u n d e rst a n d in g” 7 tha t the bar is li cense d to sell alcoh olic beverages. Appe llant do es no t assert that an y ex cept ion to Te x as Pen al Code § 46.0 2 ap plies. 8 10 Corporal Rollan d respo nde d po sitiv ely to th e Sta te’s question asking if the bar is li cens ed to se ll al cohol icbev erag es in the S tate of Tex as. Asi de from hi s c ontent ion that 7 the t est imony w as improper ly admitted hearsay and thus sh oul d be deni ed probati v e v alu e, appel la n t does not a rg ue th at a ra ti onal j uror co uld not acc ept t he officer ’s tes ti mony as proo f b e yo n d a rea sona ble do ubtthatthe ba r is a license d prem ises. W e f ind legally suf f icient evidence supp orts tha t elem entof the St ate ’s case, and ov errule ap pellan t’s third is sue. 8 Hav ing ov er ru led e a ch o f appell ant’ s c hal len g es to t he l eg al suffici ency of the ev ide nce suppo rt ing hi s c onv icti on, we aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.