### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 270 -CR

Je r m e r al K e r nal l , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 6049 2 , HO NORAB LE JO E CARROLL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Jermera l Kerna ll appeals his conviction fo r b u rg lary of a ha bitation with intent to commit ag g ravated assault with a de adly wea pon. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 30.02 (We st 2 00 3) . T he jur

y fo un d a pp e lla nt g uil ty , and a ft e r fi nd ing the e nh anc e me nt a lle g a tio ns a s to
a pr ior c on vic tio n to be tr

ue , it a sse sse d a

pp e lla nt’ s p un ish me nt at si xtee n y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt.
P OIN TS OF ER RO R Appellant adva

nces thre e points of er

ror. F irst, a

ppellant contends that the trial court
e rr e d in a dmi tti ng in to evi dence a t th e g uil t/i nn oc e nc e sta g e of the tr ia l an e xtra

ne ou s o ff e ns e to which appe llant was not sufficie ntly connec ted, and that the pr ejudicial ef fect of the extraneous offe nse out weig hed the probative value of the e vidence . Second and third, a ppellant asser

ts that the trial court e rre d in overruling his objections to the State’s jury argument at the punishment stag e of the tr ia l in that on e a rgume nt e nc oura g e d th e jur y to a sse ss p un ish me nt b a se d o n e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e s,2

while the other

argument encour ag ed the jury to spe culate about whether a wea pon used by

appellant in an extraneous off

ense w as loade d.
BACK GR OUND Ap pe lla nt d oe s n ot c ha lle ng e the le g a l or fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y of the e v i d e n c e to s us ta in his c on vic tio n. Thus , it

is n ot n eces sar y to dis c us s th e fa c ts at le ng th. Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts that in the e arl y mor nin g ho ur s o f Augus t 15 , 2 00 6, Mar ia Yba rra a nd Ca lvi n F re e man w e re a sle e p in her a partment in Temple. She w as aw akene d by a man in a “ stockin g cap” pointing a gun at her
. The man de ma

n d e d mo n e y an d p r o p e rty
. H e h it

F r e e ma ntw ic e in

th e f a c e an d h e a d c a using Fr eema n to bleed profusely
. During the alter cation, the intrude r’s “ mask” slipped and both Yba rra and F ree man re cog nized his face. I n fac t, Fre eman kne w him as “Andr e.” E ventually , the intruder took $2 0 0 from a place be side the bed a nd another

$200 from Yba

rra ’s purse be fore leaving the a pa rtme nt. The Temple police wer e ca lled, and upon ar rival the police discovere d that the front door of the apartment had been ki cked in. Calvin F ree man was taken to Scott and White Hospital fo r t re a tme nt o f h is i nju

ri e s. L ater , Fr eema

n’s brother

broug ht to Ybarra

a “f ootball prog ram” in

a s c h o o l y e a r b o ok containing a photog raph of appellant, J erme ral Andr e Ke rnall. Yba rra took the prog ram to the Temple police and pointed out the photog raph as t h at of the intruder into her a partment. She a

ndAt trial , t h e def ense soug ht to establish that Marie Yba rra had inflicted the injuries on 1 Calvin F ree man during an ar g ument, and the story of an intrude r wa s invented bec ause Ybarr a wa s on probation for

another offe nse. 3 Fr eema n ea ch identified appe llant in differe nt photogr aphic line- ups. L ater , they made in-c ourt ide nti fi c a tio ns of

a pp e lla nt. 1
EX TR

AN EOU S OF F EN SE I n h i s fi rs t point of err or appe llant claims that the trial cour t erre d in admitting into evidence an extraneous of fense aga i n s t h i m over obje ction. He ur g es that the e vidence was ins uf fi c ie nt t o c on ne c t hi m w iththe e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e “ and the p r e j ud ic ia l e ff

e c t of the [extr ane ou s] offe nse outweig hed the pr obative value of the e vidence .”

At the g uilt/i nnocenc e stag e of the trial as Of fice r Ke nneth J o hnson was testifying about the instant offe n se, the State on dire ct examination beg an to interrog ate him about an e vent that had occ urre d three day s later on August 18, 2006. The jury was re moved, an d a h ea ri ng was conducte d on appellant’ s rule 404(b) and rule 403 objections. See Tex. R. Evid. 403, 404(b). The State pointed out that it did not intend at t hat t ime to prove that a robbery occur red at the Red Roof I nn in T e mpl e tha

t da y . I t on ly int e nd e d to sh owthat a

pp e lla nt w a s arr e ste d th e re o n th e date in question near

Room 232, and that when a n office r followed a

maid into Room 231 next door, he discovere d a semi-a

utomatic pistol and g un clip on the bed, a nd also found in the room a ppellant’s Texas I D ca

rd and Te x as driver ’s license , eac h containing appellant’ s photogr aph. The State soug ht to link the g un to a

ppellant. After some argument, the trial court overr uled appellant’ s rules 403 and4

4 0 4 ( b ) o b je c ti o n s n o ti n g th a t th e e v id e n c e w o u ld b e a d mi tt e d o n th e is s u e o f id entity under
ru le 40 4( b) , an d tha t a “ba lanc ing a c t” un de r ru le 40 3 ha d be e n pe rf or me d. Th e re c or d th e n r e fl e c ts: [Defense counsel]: All r ight. Your Honor, just for the purposes of

the re cord ma

y Ihave a running objection. T h e C o u rt : yo um ay.
B e fo re the jur

y , O ff ic er J oh ns on re la te d th a t he and oth e r o ff ic e rs re sp on de d to an “inve stigation” at the Red Roof Inn on Aug ust 18, 2006, and th at appe llant, Kelly Anzadula, David Willi ams, and Micha el Whitehead we re de tai n ed. They had all bee n found in or nea r Room 232. The officer testified t hat hi s supervisor, Serg eant David Davis, ar rived at the motel as appellant was being place d in a patrol vehicle. Sgt. Davis later testified that on Augus t 1 8 , 2 006, he had g one to the Red Roof Inn and had c ome in contac t wi t h appellant a nd the other thre e in d iv id u a ls n a me d

a b o v e . Sg t. D a v is r e late d th a t h e f o ll o w e d a h o te l m a id

in to Ro o m 2 3 1 n e xt to Room 232. Once inside, he saw a pistol on the bed and the identific ation car ds with appellant’s photogr aph on ea ch. Sg t. Davis then identified State’ s exhi bits 21 throug h 27 as photog raphs take n in Room 231 of the gun, the loaded gun clip, and the identific ation car ds. When th ese seven photogr aphs we re of

fer ed into evidenc e, the de fense responde d: “No objections.” The e x hibits were admitted into evidence
.

Sub se qu e ntl y , d

ur ingSg t. D a vis ’s te sti mony , th e re c or d r e fl e c ts: Q. [P rosec utor]: S howing y ou State’s Exhi bit Number 28, S erg eant is this that g un that was re cover ed in Room 231? A. Ye s, it i s.5

[Pro se c uto r]: Al ri g ht. Th ank y ou . Y our H on or , St a te ’s [sic] mo ve s to a dmi t Ex hibit No. 28. [Defense counsel]: No objections at this tim e, y our Honor. The Court: Admitted.
Her e, on appe al appe llant complains that the trial cour t erre d in admitting evidenc e of an e x trane ous offe nse of the posse ssion o f a gun found in Room 231 of the Red Roof I nn
o nA u g u s t1 8 , 2 0 0 6
. It a p p e a r s , u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t an c e s , t h a ta p p e l l an th a s w a i v e d

an y e r r o r . If a par ty aff irmatively asser

ts dur ing trial that he has “no objection” to the previously complained- of
o r o b je c te d

- to e v id e n c e , an y

e r r o r in th e a d mi s s io no f

th e e v id e n c e is waived. Nor ris v . S tat e , 90 2 S. W.2 d 4 28 , 4 39 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ); J am es v . S tat e , 772 S.W .2d 84, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 89 ); Bo y k in v . S tat e , 5 04 S.W. 2d

85 5, 85 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); Fl or es v . S tat e , 215 S.W .3d 520, 531 (Tex. App.—Be aumont 2007), aff’d , 2 4 5 S
. W
. 3 d 4 3 2 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 8 ); 4 3 A G eo rge E. Dix & Robe rt O. Davidson, Texas Practice : Cri mi na l P ra c tic e an d P ro c e du re § 42.273, (2d ed. 20 01 ); se e als o P oja r v . Ci fre , 199 S.W .3d 317, 341 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. denied) (stating the same r

ule in civil case s). Re c e n tl y , th e T e xa s Co u rt o f Cr im in a l A p p e a ls in Hol me s v . S tat e , 248 S.W .3d 194, 200-02 (Te x . Crim. App. 2008) , rea ffirme d the ea rlier c ase of W

y att v . S tat e , 282 S.W .2d 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955), to the ext ent that ca s e h el d a d efe ndant waive s any complaint on appea l
conce rning the admission of ev i d en ce wh en he a ffirmatively states “no objec tion” at the time the evidenc e is offe red. To that ext ent, W y att is stil l good la

w. Holmes , 248 S.W .3d at 201.I n his testimony , appellant de nied the instant o ff en s e, claiming that he wa s out of town 2 when it occ urre d. He a lso denied the robbe ry which wa s the basis of his adjudi cation and commitment to the Tex as Youth Council. Appellant fur ther testified t h at he was at the Red Roof I nn on Aug ust 18, 2006, to pick up his identification cards that he had lef t there the night be fore
. 6 By aff irmatively

stating “ no objection” to the photog raphs ( State’s exhibit s Nos. 21- 27) showing the semi-automatic pistol and loade d cl i p and the identification car ds, and off ering “no objec tion” to the offe r of the g un and clip, appe llant has waive d any err or in the admission of the evidenc e of the extraneous offe nse, and has lost the ability to c laim e rror in that r eg ard. The fa ct that th e re wa s a

ru nn ingob je c tio n d oe s n ot c ha

ng e the ru le
. We n e e d n ot a dd re ss a pp e lla nt’ s c la im. The fir st point of error

is overrule d.
JURY AR GU MENT I n h is s e c on d p oin t of

e rr or , a pp e lla nt u rg e s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in ov e rr uli nghis ob je c tio n to the State ’s argume nt at the punis hme nt sta g e of the tr ia l “ e nc oura g ingthe jur y to a sse ss punishment based on evide nce of extraneous offe nses.” At the punishment stag e, t h e S tate off ere d evidenc e to support the enha nceme nt
a lle g a tio n tha t app e lla

nt ha d pre vio us ly be e n ad

jud ic a te d a del inq

ue nt on the ba sis of a fe lony , to wi t: robber y and commit ted t o the Tex as Youth Council in 2003. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 12.42(f) (West Supp. 2008). Appellant in his testim ony at the punishment stag e confirme d this adjudication
and c omm itm e nt. He further te stified that at the time he wa s also on juvenile probation for being

2 an accomplice to another robbe ry . His mother testified, int e r a lia , that appellant ha d been involved in f our r ob be ri e s in

fo ur y e ars .The c urre nt code is cited f or conve nience
. 3 7 The S t at e al s o offe red e vidence of an una djudicated r obbery that occur

red at the Red Roof I nn on Aug ust 18, 2006. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07(3) (a) (1) ( West S upp. 2008). J ordac he B lair wa s a g uest at the motel on the date in question. W hen he le ft the motel

3 at nine o’c lock that morning , he testified t h at he was ac costed by appellant, whom he identified in c ourt. Appellant place d a black semi-automatic g un in B lair’s fac e. Bla ir dropped h i s s on’s diaper bagand beg an to run. As Bla ir looked back, he saw appellant pick up the di aper bag
. The dia pe r b a g wa s late r f

ound in R oo m 231 wit

h a pist ol, g un c lip , a

nd a pp e lla nt’ s id e nti fi c a tio n c a rd s. D u r i n g j u r

y ar g u m e n t , a

p p e l l an t ’ s c o u n s e l t o l d

t h e j u r y:
. . . . But we are asking

—and y ou have to punish. We are asking for a minimum punishment. W e are asking for five y ear s. We are asking y ou to find not true on the enhanc ement and f

ind five y ear s on punishment. . . .
I n response , the State’s attorne y argued: What is right is doing justice. What is rig ht is g iving this man what he has e arne d. When the defe nse attorney asked y ou to disre g ard the prior adjudication for robber y and se nte nc e to j uv e nil e pri son and to g ive fi ve y e ars in t

his c a se , h e wa

nts y ou to g ive a lit tle mor e tha

n on e y e ar fo r e a c h ro bb e ry thi s de fe nd ant ha s be e n a pa rt of it [s ic ].
Th e re c or d th e n r e fl e c ts: [De fe ns e c ouns e l]: O bje c tio n y our H on or . H e is n ot o n tr ia l f or any oth e r c a se s. [ P ro s ec u t o r] : J u d ge, t h i s i s s en t en ci n g. The Court: Iwill overrule the objection.8 Permissible jury

argument g ener ally

falls within on e o f four a rea s: (1) summation of the e vidence ; (2) re asonable deductions f ro m t h e ev idence ; (3) an a nswer to the a

rg ument of opposing counsel; or ( 4) a ple a for law enf orce ment. Be rry

v . S tat e , 233 S.W .3d 847, 859 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); Can na dy v . S tat e , 11 S.W .3d 205, 213 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Even if the de fense objection was suf ficient, the pr osecutor’ s ar gument was permissible as an a

nswer to opposing counsel’s a rg ument with o v er tones also of be ing a plea f or law enfor ceme nt. Mor eover , appellant doe s not challeng e on appe al the admissibility of evide nce of the e x trane ous offe nses o r b ad acts under ar ticle 37.07(3)( a)( 1) at the punishment stag e, but
ur g e s th a t th e se “ oth e r c a se s” a dmi tte d in to e vid e nc e sh ou ld n ot b e c on sid e re d by the j ur y in assessing punishment. Ar thu r v . S tat e , 11 S.W .3d 386, 391-93 (Tex . App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 2000, pet. re f’d) , fully

examined this i ssue and unde r the c urre nt law roun d l y rejected the contention now adva

nced by appellant. Prior crimes or bad acts are introduced to provide additional information that the ju

r y ma y c o n s id e r in d eter mining what punishment the defenda nt should rece ive. Fi e lds v . Stat e , 1 S.W. 3d 68 7, 68 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); Da v is v . S tat e , 968 S.W .2d 368, 373 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

Ap pe lla nt c ite s Lom as v . S

tat e , 707 S.W .2d 566, 568-69 (Te x . Crim. App. 1986), and it s p r o g e n y to s u

p p o rt h is c o n te n ti o n. Lomas h e l d i nef fe ct t h at a p ro s ec u t o r m ay n o ten co u ra ge a jury to include additional punishment beca use of a collater al cr ime. Se e als o Ko lue pp e l v . S tat e , 505 S.W .2d 572, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). I n Gr un sfe ld v . S tat e , 843 S.W. 2d

52 1 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1992), it was he ld that the admission of unadjudicate d extraneous offe nse e v i dence at the puni shment stag e of a non-capital t rial was reve rsible er ror. Id
. a t 52 6. As Arthur , 11 S.W .3d9

at 392-93, pointed out, a ll of these opinions conce rned tria ls conducted be fore September 1, 1993, wh e n th e le g isl a tio n ame nd inga rt ic le 37 .0 7, se c tio n 3 (a ) b e c a me effect ive a nd su pe rs e de d th e se holdings. See Act of May 29, 1993, 73d L eg ., R.S., ch. 900, § 5.05, art. 37.07, 1993 Tex . Gen. L aws 3 7 5 9 (e ff ec t i v e S ep t
. 1 , 1 9 9 3 ). T h i s am en d m en t al l o we d a j u ry t o co n s i d er

at t h e p u n i s h m en ts t age of a tria l ext rane ous offe nses that wer e not adjudicated, but on l y i f the State prove d bey ond
a re asonable doubt that the offe nse occ urre d and that the defe n d an t committed the offe nse. See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 3 7. 07 (3 )( a )( 1) (We st Su pp . 2 00 8) ; Arthur , 11 S.W .3d at 392. The St a te a s k e d

th e ju r y to a s s e s s li f

e im p r is o n me n t. T h e ju

r y a s s e s s e d s ixt e e ny e ar s ’ im

p r is o n me n t. We
overr ule appe llant’s second point of e rror . I n his third point of error, appellant complains ag ain about the State’ s jury argument at the punishment stag e of the trial. He a sserts the ar g ument encour ag ed the jury to speculate about whether the wea pon “alleg edly ” used by appellant in the extraneous offe nse of August 18, 2006, was loaded. The rec ord re flec ts the complained-of argument and objec tion:
You folks have a re sponsibili ty to the communi ty
. I started talkingto y ou about that when I first g ot up here . Be cause when [sic] t ake a look at what else i s connec ted wi t h S t at e’ s Ex hibit Number 28, it is the clip for this gun. Y ou folks see w hat’s sticking up on top of there ? I t is a bullet. This gun wa s loaded whe n it was found. When it was put in the face of Jody Bla ir it was loaded. [Defense counsel]: Objection, Your Honor. Ag ain, that is speculation. The re is no evidenc e that the gun was loade d at the time. [Pro se c uto r]: I nf

e re nc e fr om t

he fa c ts. The Court: All rig ht. Iwill overrule.10 Appell ant’s objection was direc ted and limited to the prosec utor’s last sentenc e be fo re the ob

je c tio n. Th e State c on te nd s th a t th e e a rl ie r p or tio n of the q

uo te d a rgume nt w a s a summat i o n o f the e vidence and a pe rmissible plea for law enf orce ment, se e Be rry , 233 S.W .3d at 859, while the last sente nce w as a r easona ble deduc tion from the evidenc e constituting pr oper jury argument. See id
.

J ordac he B lair wa s l ea v i n g t he Red Roof Inn when a ppellant, ac cordingto Blair, place d a bla ck s em i -automatic ha ndg un in his face . Bla ir turned a nd ran. When he looked bac k, he sawappellant pick up the diaper bagthat he had dropped when he was accosted by appellant. The diaper bagcontained some of B lair’s pe rsonal items. The police wer e immediately called a nd responde d. Appellant was identified as the robbe r and a rre sted. Shortly

there afte r, in Room 231 of the Red Roof I nn, an off

icer found appe llant’s identification cards, t he gun and its clip and Blair’ s diaper bag . State’s exhibit s Nos. 21 and 23 ar e photog raphs of t he g un found on the be d with the clip in the gun. State’s ex hibit No. 22 is a photogra ph of t he gun with the clip re moved re vealing a bullet in the clip. The gun discovere d matched the descr iption given by Bla ir. Ap p el l an tre l i es upon H

o o p e r v . S tat e , 214 S.W .3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), holding that while juries may

drawmultipl e infe renc es as long as eac h infere nce is suppor ted by the evidenc e pr e se nte d at tria l, the y are no t f re e to c ome to a

c on c lus ion

ba se d o n me re sp e c ulatio n o r f a c tua lly unsupported infe renc es or pr esumptions. Id . at 15-16. Hooper dealt with s ufficie ncy of the e vidence to suppor t the jury ’s verdic t a

nd the stacking of infer ence s. Id . Her e, we are confr onted with a onesentence j u ry argument of which a ppellant complains. Hooper is not controlling. The argument
wa s r e la te d to an e xtra

ne ous off ens e and whe the r t

he g un wa s th e n lo a de d. Th e argume nt w a s a11

rea sonable de duction for the pr osecutor to make from the evidenc e. I t w as not outside the are a of proper jury argument. Cannady , 11 S.W .3d at 213. We overr ule the third point of er

ror. The judg ment is affirme d.

__________________________________________ J ohn F. Onion, Jr., J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Onion* Affir med Filed: Oc tober 7, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh

* Be fore J ohn F. Onion, J r., Presiding J udg e (re tired), Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assig nment. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.003(b) ( West 2005).