NO. 07-06 -035 8-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D NO VEM BER6, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ SECUNDINO EST RADA A/K/A PINO DINO EST RADA, APP ELL ANT V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; NO . 17, 959-A; H ON ORABLE DA VID GLE ASON , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Fol low ing a pl ea of not g uil ty , Ap pel lan t, S e cu ndi no Es trada a/ k/a Pi no D ino Estra da , w as c on v i c te d by a j ur y of ars on w i th an affi r ma ti v e fi nd i ng on us e of a dea dly w eapon a nd sent enced to sev enteen y ears confine ment and a $7,500 fine. H e present s tw o poi nts of er ro r by w hic h he maint ain s the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on ( 1) by fail ingPoin t of error one w as ad dresse d by this C ourt in App ellant ’s appe al of his 1 aggravated a ssault co nviction in co mp anio n case bea ring cause n um ber 07 -06-03 57-CR and is not relevant to the arson con v iction in this ap pea l. 2 to g iv e an ins tr uct ion to the jur y on ass aul t, a l ess er

i ncl uded offense, and (2 ) by deny ing 1 the d efense a mis tr ial after the Stat e’s pro se cu ti ng att or ney g av e i mprop er

final cl osi ng arg ument t o the j ur

y dur ing the p u n ish m ent p hase. H e mai ntai ns the t ri al cour t’ s a cti on de ni ed h i m d ue p roc es s a nd e q ua l p rot ecti on o f t he l aw . W e affi r m. Upo n ar ri v ing home fro m w or k o ne after n o o n , a n e ig hbor heard Er ic a Vas q uez hol ler ing from a few house s aw ay about a fire

. He smel led smok e and ran dow n the st re et to hel p. Vasq uez w as shout ing acc usat ion s that Appel lan t had set fire to the h ouse. Sh e is Appel lan t’ s ste psi ste r and moth er of his two y oung ch il dren. The ev ide nce show ed th at Appel lan t bec ame ang ry w hen Va sq ueztol d hi m she w as endi ng thei r re lat ion shi p. Base d on Vas q uez ’s ac cus ati ons that Appel lan t had st arted t he fire, t he as si sti ng nei g hbor as ked Appel lan t t o “ hang around a m in u te” and w aitfor l aw enforc ement. Ac cordin g to the nei g hbor , Appel lan t had a kni fe an d threatened to cut him before fleei ng . Re sp o n d ing off ic ers p ursued him on foot and ev entually “b o xed” hi m in to an al ley w here he w as handc uffed and ar re ste d. A s earch inc ide nt t o ar re st produce d a k nife w it h a b ur nt t ip. Appel lan t’ s s econd poi nt c ontent ion i s t hat t he tr ial courterred in deny ing a mist ri al a f t e r t h e p ro s e c u t o r

g a v e i m p ro p e r

j u r y a rg u m e n td u r i n g t h e p u n i s h m e n tp h a s e . W e d isa gree. To be per mis si ble , j ur y arg ument mus t fall w it hin one of the foll ow ing four g eneral areas: ( 1) su mmation of the e v ide nce; ( 2) reas o n a b le d educt ion from t he3

ev ide nce; ( 3) ans w er

to oppos ing co unsel 's arg ument; or ( 4) pl ea fo r la w

enforc ement. See Gal lo v. State , No. AP-74 900 , 200 7 W L 27 812 76, *6 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. Se pt. 2 6, 20 07); Can tu v. State , 939 S.W .2d 627 , 633 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 7). Dur ing cl osi ng arg ument of the puni shmentphas e, t he prosec utor co mmented: [b]y the w ay , itd o e sn ’ttak e a rock et s ci enti st that he’ s b een ar re ste d and charged wi th a pe ndin g robb ery . It’s kind of hard for us to try it here before it ’s tr ied so mew here el se. . . . Defense co unsel obj ect ed on the g ro und t hat “ [e]v ide nce of such robber y i f it ex is ted, w oul d hav e been admis si ble reg ardle ss of w here i t hap pened.” The t ri al cour t s ust ain ed the o bje cti on and ins tr uct ed th e j ur y to dis re g ard the prosec utor ’s st atement. Dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce phase , Va sq ueztes ti fied th at s he w as aw are Appe ll ant had an ou tsta n d in g wa rran t for felon y robbe ry . No objectio n w as lodged bydefense co u n s e l

. O ffi c e r

R a y mo n d H o l s e y , w h o h a d b e e n d i s p a t c h e d t o t h e fi re , a l s o t e s t i fi ed wit h o u to bje c t io n t h a th e kn e w Ap p e ll a n th a d a n o u t s t a n d in g wa rr a n tfo r ro b b e ry. W hen t he tr ial co urt sust ain s an object ion to improper arg ument an d i nst ru cts the jur y to dis re g ard, there is no e rror by the tr ial co urt. Ar

chi e v . St ate , 221 S.W .3d 6 95, 6 99 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)

. The onl y adv e rse r u ling and oc cas ion for a mis tak e i s t he tr ial cour t’ s d eni al of a moti on for mis tr ial , w hic h i s rev iew ed for abuse of dis creti on. Id . at699- 700. See al

so Hawk ins v. Sta te , 135 S.W .3d 7 2, 77 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)

. In de ter mini ng w het her the trial court abu sed its discretion b y den y ing a mistrial, w e ba lance three facto rs:4

(1 ) the s ev er ity

of the mi sc onduct ( preju dic ial effect ), ( 2) cu ra ti ve measure, an d ( 3) the cer tai n ty of the pun is hment as ses sed absen t t he mi sc onduct. See Gallo , 2 0 0 7 WL 2781276, at *7; Hawk

ins , 135 S.W .3d a t 77.

Sev erity o f th e C on du ct Appel lan t arg ues that the p ro sec utor ’s co mments do notfall w ith in a n y of the cat eg or ies of per mis si ble j ur y arg ument. W hen as ses si ng the prejudic ial effectof the prosec utor ’s comments , w e v iew them in li g ht of the enti re record. Hawk ins , 135 S.W .3d at 78 -8 0. It i s a rguabl e tha t t he c omments amount t o s ummatio n of ev ide nce from Vasq uez ’s and Off ic er

H ols ey ’s tes ti mony

thatAppel lan t had an o uts tanding w ar ra nt for ro bbe ry . Th us, w e de cline to f ind th at th e prose cuto r’s statem entconstitu ted sev ere mis condu ct. Cu rat ive M easu re T h e t ri a l c o u rtsu s t a in e d A p p e ll a n t ’s o bje c t io n a n d im m e d ia t e ly i s s u e d a cu ra t ive ins tr uct ion to the j ur

y . W e presume the j ur y foll ow ed th e c our

t’ s i nst ru cti ons. Gardn er v. State , 730 S.W .2d 675 , 696 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 7). A ppe llant cont end s the pro secut or’s com me nts w ere so “ma nifestly imp rope r” tha t no instru ction could cu re t he dam age. He arg ues that under

Rule 404(b) of

the Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce, ev ide nce of other cr imes is not admis si ble to prov e Appe ll ant’ s b ad c haract er .5

Und er ar ti cl e 37. 07, § 3 of the Tex as Cod e of C ri minal Procedu re Annot ated (V er non 2 0 0 6 ) , e v i d e n c e ma y b e o ffe re d a s t o a n y ma t t e r t h e c o u rt d e e ms re l e v a n tto s e n t e n c in g, in c lu d in g b u t n o t li m it e d t o t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s p ri o r cr im in a l r e c o rd

. Ad d it io n a ll y, ev ide nce of A ppel lan t’ s w ar ra nt for ro bber y w as tes ti fied to by tw o w it nesse s w it hout obj ect ion dur ing the g uilt/i n nocen ce phase

. Ev ide nce int ro duced from ot her so urces w i th ou t ob

j ecti on w ai v es s ub s eq ue ntc om pl ai nt s a bo utt he i nt rod ucti on of t he sa me ev ide nce from anot her

so urce. Rey

es v. State , 84 S. W .3d 633 , 638 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 2). Accordin gly , w e f ind t he co urt’s curative instruction was suf f icient to atte nua te an y claim of h ar m. Cer

ta in ty o f th e Pu ni shm entA ssessed A bsen t th e M isco nd uct W h e r e , a s h e re , t h e a rg u m e n to c c u rr e d d u ri n g t h e p u n is h m e n tp h a s e o f t ri a l, we must anal yz e the puni shmentasse ss e d ag ain st the p ro babi li ty thatthe same o r si mil ar puni shmentw oul d hav e been impos ed abs ent t he al leg ed mi sc onduct. Archie , 221 S

. W

. 3 d a t7 0 0

. A p p e l l a n tw a s c o n v i c t e d o f a rs o n w i t h a n a ffi r ma t i v e fi n d i ng on u s e o f a deadl y w eapon, a f irst deg re e felo ny . A first deg re e felony ca rr ies a s entenc e of li fe or any ter m of not more than ninety-n ine ye ars or les s than f iv e y ears, w it h the possi bil ity of a f ine not t o ex ceed $10,000

. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12.32. ( Ve rn o n 2 003)

. Appel lan t w as sent enced to sev enteen y ears confinementand a $7, 500 fine. The c onfinement is on t he low end of the statut or

y rang e of punish ment and cert ain ly w it hin the ra ng e of puni shment that mig ht ha v e been impos ed by a fair and re asona ble j uror .6

W hil e the re w as some ev ide nce that Appel lan t mayhav e been unaw are he sta rt ed the f ire, and m ay ha v e even tried to extinguish it, the ju ry h ad alread y

h eard o f Appe llant’s robb ery w arrant f rom o the r w itnesse s prior to the com me nts by the prose cuto r. T here is not hing in the record to indicat e tha t App ellantmight have receiv ed a lesser sente nce absen t t hose comments

. Conclusion After bal anci ng the three factors t o det er mine w hether the t ri al cour t abu sed it s discre ti on i n deny ing Appel lan t’ s mot ion for mi str ial , w e c oncl ude t here w as no abus e. Poi nt of er ro r tw o i s o v er ru led

. Hav ing ov er ru led Appel lan t’ s o nly co ntent ion per

ti nent to his arson co nviction, the trial c o u rt ’s judgmen t in trial court cause num ber 17 ,95 9-A is aff ir med. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice

Do not p ubl is h.