AFFIRM; Opinion issued April 11, 2013

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-00343-CR

No. 05-12-00344-CR

No. 05-12-00345-CR

ARRON EUGENE GREEN JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-14398-R, F09-20670-R & F09-20676-R

OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Lang, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Francis

Arron Eugene Green Jr. appeals his convictions for two robbery offenses and aggravated 

robbery with a deadly weapon. Appellant pleaded guilty to all three charges in accordance with 

plea agreements with the State and was placed on deferred adjudication probation for seven 

years. The State filed motions to adjudicate guilt when he was charged with robbery and 

evading arrest. At the hearing on the motions, the State proceeded only on the allegation that 

appellant violated his probation by committing evading arrest and robbery. The trial court found 

appellant guilty and assessed punishment at twenty years for each robbery charge and thirty 

years for the aggravated robbery charge. In one issue, appellant claims the trial court abused its 

discretion in overruling his objections to certain evidence. We affirm. 
2

Employees of the McDonald’s Restaurant at Corn Valley and Pioneer Parkway testified 

the robber wore black sweat pants, a blue t-shirt over a white long-sleeved t-shirt, a “do rag,” and 

yellow rubber gloves. He was carrying a gun and a black bag. Inside the black bag was a blue 

bag which he handed to the employees and told them to fill it with the money from the safe and 

cash registers.

Grand Prairie police officer Kevin Cox said he responded to the robbery call with several 

other officers. Employees and witnesses gave a physical description of the robber based 

primarily on clothing and told the officers he ran toward the church diagonally across from 

McDonald’s. Cox drove in the direction of the church where he saw appellant running across 

the street. After following appellant in his car, Cox then chased him on foot, joined by Officers 

Yancy and Hickman. The officers identified themselves but appellant did not stop running until 

Officer Yancy tackled him.

Appellant was wearing red pants and was carrying a blue bag. Inside the bag was a black 

bag, cash, and what appeared to be a gun. Cox returned to the neighborhood area near the 

McDonald’s and found a pair of black sweat pants hanging on a fence. Nearby, he found a blue 

shirt and a white long-sleeved t-shirt.

In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his 

objections that Officer Cox’s testimony was speculative because he did not have personal 

knowledge of the facts to which he testified. We overrule appellant’s issue.

We review a trial court’s ruling admitting testimony under an abuse of discretion 

standard and will uphold the trial court’s decision if it is within “the zone of reasonable 

disagreement.” Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 153 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
3

Cox initially testified on direct about the clothing the officers found. He was not asked 

and did not offer any explanation or theory about why the clothing was near the fence or why the 

officers looked for the clothing.

During cross-examination, defense counsel asked Cox about the clothing he found and 

whether they found rubber gloves or a do rag in the area. Cox conceded they did not. Counsel 

then asked if it appeared someone had disrobed by the fence and remarked “So someone would 

have to rip that shirt off and rip those pants off where that fence is, correct?”

During redirect, the State asked Cox if he had experienced “that those who commit 

robberies or burglaries oftentimes in running away try and get out of clothes so that they don’t fit 

descriptions?” After the trial court overruled appellant’s objection that Cox was being asked to 

speculate, Cox responded yes. The State then asked if that was why Cox backtracked and found 

the clothes. Cox said appellant was wearing different clothes than those described by witnesses, 

so he told his fellow officers he thought there had been enough time for appellant “to possibly 

have done something like change.” Appellant again objected to speculation, and the trial court 

overruled the objection.

The first statement is not speculation; rather, Cox testified about his experience generally 

as an officer. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling the first objection. To the 

extent the second statement was speculation, appellant has failed to show harm.

An erroneous decision to admit or exclude evidence is nonconstitutional error. Walters v. 

State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Under rule 44.2(b), we disregard 

nonconstitutional error that does not affect the substantive rights of appellant. Potier v. State, 68 

S.W.3d 657, 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). A substantial right is affected when the error has a 
4

substantial and injurious effect or influence. See Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571, 592 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008).

Nothing in the record shows appellant was harmed by Cox’s statement. Appellant 

testified and, although he denied robbing the McDonald’s, he admitted he evaded arrest. This 

evidence alone was sufficient to support the State’s motions to adjudicate guilt. Under these 

circumstances, we cannot conclude appellant was harmed by Cox’s testimony. We overrule his 

single issue.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

120343F.U05

/Molly Francis/

MOLLY FRANCIS

JUSTICE
5

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ARRON EUGENE GREEN JR. , Appellant

No. 05-12-00343-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-14398-R.

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. 

Justices Lang and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered April 11, 2013.

/Molly Francis/

MOLLY FRANCIS

JUSTICE
6

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ARRON EUGENE GREEN JR. , Appellant

No. 05-12-00344-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-20670-R.

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. 

Justices Lang and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered April 11, 2013.

/Molly Francis/

MOLLY FRANCIS

JUSTICE
7

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ARRON EUGENE GREEN JR. , Appellant

No. 05-12-00345-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-20676-R.

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. 

Justices Lang and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered April 11, 2013.

/Molly Francis/

MOLLY FRANCIS

JUSTICE