### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIRD DISTRICT , AT AUST IN

NO. 03-00-00443-CR

Charles Edward M ore, AKA Charl es Edw ard Moor e, Appellant
v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE

DISTRICT CO URT OF BE LL COUNT Y, 27TH J

UDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 50, 703, HONORAB LE MARTH

A J. TRUDO, JUDGE

PRESIDING Appellant Charles Edwar d More was convicted by a jur y of the f elony off ense of debit ca rd abuse, which was enhanced to a s econd degree felony. The jury assessed punishment at twenty years in the Texas Department of Cri minal Justice. SeeTex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 32. 31 (West 1994) & 12. 42(a)(1) (West Supp. 2 0 0 1 )
. Bya single point of err or, More complains that two items of e

vidence were erroneously admit

ted beca use the State failed toproperly authentica te the evidence pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 901. We affirm the conviction.
DISCUSSI ON OnSeptember 20, 1999, B everly P atterson was at a grocery stor e in Killeen when she noticed her wallet was missing. She reported the theft to the police and pr ovided a description of the person she suspected had taken he r wallet. One of

the it ems i n the wall et wa s Patte

rson’s debit card. According to P atterson, the loss of the debit card cost her $21. 00.1 Th e tri al cou rt al so adm i tted th e A TM r ec ei pt i nto e vi de nc e, b ut M ore a ppe al s th e a dm i ss i on of only the debit card and the t wo t en-dollar bi ll s. 2 Thatsame night, Officers John Gri der and Mike Aycock were on duty when they not iced a man who fit the description pr ovided by Patter son headed towards a 7 -Eleve n convenience store. Officer Grider stopped the man, who was later identified as More, and asked for iden ti fi ca ti on . Mo re s ai d his

na me wa s C la re nce Mille r, his date of birth was October 11, 1956, and t

hat h e inte

nded to purch ase

asp irin for hishead

ache at the 7-El even. A ccording to Off ic er Grider ’s testimony at trial, he observed Mor e head towards the ATM machine as he entered the store a nd pu nch “nu mb ers on th e f ac e o f t he machin e” bu

t d id no t w it ne ss Mo re obtaining any cash. As Mor e exited the st ore wi thout any p urch ases, he was again questioned by Officer Grider , but this time he provided the na me of Ch arl es Miller and a date of bir th of October 30 , 19 57
. Mo re was th en arr este d for failur e to identify himself, and Officer Aycock searched the appellant. Aycock reco vered from More a debit card with the name B everly Patterson, an ATM receipt, and two te n-dollar bills. Appellan

t was la ter indicted for debit

ca rd abuse. At

trial, the Sta

te offered the de

bit card and the

two ten-dol lar bills into evidence. 1 Over Mor e’s objection, the trial cour t admitted the evidence, and Mo re appe als t

he trial court’s ruling, claiming the Sta

te failed to establish an affirmative link between the evidence and More. He argues that without the err oneously admitted evidence, there is no evidence to support the conviction.3 A trial court has the d

iscretion to d

etermine the s

ufficiency

of the predicate

to admit evidence, and we will not disturb the trial court’s deci sion abs ent a n abus e of that discretion. Smith v. State , 683 S
. W. 2d 393 , 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)
. When the State establishe s the beginning and the end

of a chain of custody, and there is no evidenc e of tampering, any gaps in the chain usually go to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence. Lagrone v. State , 942 S. W. 2d 602 , 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) ; Porte r v. State , 969 S. W. 2d 60, 66 (Tex. App.

— Aust in 199 8, pet. ref’d). He re, the S ta te of fe red ex hi bits 1 a nd 3 t hroug h t he te st im on y o f O ff ic er G rider. Appellant argues that Officer Aycock is the witne ss who

should have authenticate d the exhi bits since he is the one who recoveredthem during his search of the appellant. When questioned by defense counsel, Officer Gr ider testified that he picked up the State’s exhibits from the jail prior to attending the trial; however, he did not remove the items fr om the appellant and examine them at the tim e of the arrest. Later, Officer Aycock testifie d and iden

tified exhi

bits 1 an d 3 as th e items he recovered from M ore after searching him. The trial court did not admit exhibits 1 and 3 in to evidence

un ti l a ft er b ot

h O ff ic er G rider a nd O fficer Aycock te stified. Thus, the Sta te established

the beginning and the end of the cha

inof custody through the testimony of these two witn es se s, an d b ec au se

th ere was no evidence of tampering, any questions regarding gaps in the chain of custod

y did not affe ct the ad

missib ility

of the evidence. We hold the trial cour t did not abuse its discretion in admitting these items into evidence.4 CONCLU SION Having overr uled More’s single point of er ror , we affirm his conviction.

__________________________________________ Jan P. Patter son, Justice B efore Chief

Justice Abouss ie, Justices Yeake l and Patter son Affirm ed F iled: March 29, 2001 Do N ot Pu blish