Aflirm and Opinion Filed November 30, 2012.

In The Qtourt of pptat 

## jfi1tj ttrtct of

### ZJJexa at atta No. 05-i 1-01550-CR JOHNNY CRENSHAW, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial 1)istrict Court 1)allas County, Texas Trial CourtCause No. F10-54748-P 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION BeforeJustices O’Neill, FitzGerald, andLang-Miers OpinionbyjusticeLang-Miers Appellant Johnny Crenshaw appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child and accompanying 15-year prison sentence. In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence a picture ofa child other than the complainant. We affirm the trial court’sjudgment. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuantto Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the

case is well settled. The complainant, appellant’s step-granddaughter, testified that appellant sexually abused herwhen she was a child. The complainantwas 22 years old atthe time oftrial. She said she did

inot tell anyone about the sexual abuse until she was 1 or 19 years old when she told her boyfriend and he persuaded her to tell her mother, who called the police. She testified that appellant

### made herget undressed and had sex with her, performed oral sex on her, took a shower with her, and used a Polaroid camera to take suggestive pictures ofher wearing her cheerleader uniform, She said appellant posed her on the washing machine at his apartment “[w]ith one of [her] legs kind ofcocked up where you can see myunderwears.” She said the sexual abuse ended when she was 12 because she moved in with her grandmother, who had separated from appellant, and she neversaw appellantagain until trial. The State introduced avideo recording ofappellant’s statement to the police. Retold the detective that the complainant had “seen too much as a child” and she always wanted him to “mess with her” like “pull herclothes up and sit on my lap.” He said the complainantwas about eight years oldwhen she askedhim “to do her.” Appellant testified and denied that he sexually abused the complainant. On cross— examination, appellant denied thathe took sexually suggestivepictures ofthe complainantorany othergrandchild. The State then asked appellantto identify a group ofsix pictures. One ofthose pictures was of a granddaughter, not the complainant, lying on a bed in a nightgown at appellant’s apartment. When the State offered the picture into evidence, appellant objected on the ground ofrelevance. Thetrial courtoverruledthe objection and admittedthepicture. In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting “a blatantly inflammatory picture ofa young girl dressed in a nightgown.” We review

atrial court’s decisionto admit evidence for an abuse ofdiscretion. Waiters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204. 217 (Tex. Crirn. App. 2007). We will not reverse the judgment unless the trial court’s decisionfell outsidethe zone ofreasonable disagreement. 

### Jd.The complained—ofpicture depicts appellant’s granddaughterlying face downon abed in

a nightown lcing away from the photographer. Although the nightgown is short, it does not reveal 

### any private areas. To the extent the picture is sexually suggestive, it was relevant to impeach appellant’s testimony that he did not take sexually suggestive pictures of his grandchildren. Consequently, appellant has not shown thatthe trial court abused its discretion by overruling his relevance objection to the picture. With regard to appellant’s other complaints about the admission ofthe picture,’ they are raised for the first time on appeal and are not preserved for ourreview. SeeLopez v. State, 200 S.W.3d 246, 251 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist,] 2006, pet. ref’d) (relevance objection does not preserve for review an issue under Rule 403): TEx. R. A[’P. P. 33.1 (requiring specific oblection and ruling to preserve issue for review unless objection is obvious fromcontext). We resolve appellant’s sole issue againsthim. We affirmthe trial court’sjudgment.

* ij*ti /t 7 / / 7 4* I

— — ELiZABETH LANGMiERS JUS’CE / DoNotPublish TEx. R. App. P.47 11 1550F.U05

Citing Texas Rule ofEvidence 403. appellant also argues that the ‘State cannot open the door to matters not otherwise admissible and then prove up the collateral events unless the events themselves were independently admissible.” that appellant did not open the door to the admissibility ofthe picture, that while the picture “was ostensibly impeachment evidence, its true purpose was to attribute to [appellant) a prurient interest in children.” and thatthe evidence was “undeniably prejudicial.” 3

## utirt nf \ppraI Fift1! 3htrirt uf rxw at Ja11a JUDGMENT No. 05-1 1-01550-CR JOHNNY CRENSHAW, Appellant THE STATE OFTEXAS. Appeilee Appeal from the 203rdJudicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas (Trial Court No, Fl0-54748-P). Opinion deliveredby Justice Lang-Miers, Justices O’Neill and FitzGerald participating. Based onthe Courts opinion ofthis date, thejudgment olthe trial court is AFFIRI\1ED. Judgment entered November 30, 2012. / Ft1ZABEl’Fl LANG-MIERS JUSTICE