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

NO. 03-04-00420- CR

Chr ist oba l R odr igu e z Ro ble s, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 20250 20, H ONO RAB LE BRENDA P . KENNEDY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant Christobal Rodriguez Robles g uilty of ag g ravated robb e r

y and assessed his punishment at ten y ear s’ imprisonment. SeeTex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2003). I n two points of error , appellant contends the trial cour t did not properly

submit j ury

issues reg arding the voluntariness of his state ment to the police and his c ommissi on of an extra n eo u s o ff en s e. Findingno err or, we will affirm the c onviction.

Appellant wa s one of two men who robbed an employ ee of an Austin jewe lry

store
a t gun po int . F oll ow inghis arr e st, a pp e lla nt g a ve a vid e ota pe d o ra l st a te me nt t o the po lic e . In th is statement, appe llant confe ssed to his participation in the cha rg ed robbe ry

and in another

je w e lr y s tor e robber y one month ear lier. The trial c ourt overr uled appe llant’s motion to s uppress the state ment afte r dete rmining that it was voluntarily g iven. SeeTe x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 3 8. 22 (We st 2005). That por

tion of the s tatement re lating to the c harg ed off ense w as admitted in evidenc e during2

the g uilt-innocence phase of the trial. The r emainder of the stateme nt, in which appellant c onfesse d to the extraneous robbe ry , was a dmitted during the punishment phase.

At both stag es of the t rial, t he court instructed the jurors not to consider a ppellant’s state me nt u

nle ss t hey be lie ve d b e y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t th a t a

pp e lla nt w a s a dv ise d o f h is r ig hts befor e makingthe statement, that appellant voluntarily waived his r ights, a nd that appellant made the statement voluntarily

and without compulsion or persua sion. Se e id . ar t. 38. 22 , § 6. I n h is f

ir st point o f e r

r o r , a p p e ll an t c o n te n d s th a t th e c o u rt e r r e d b y r e f u s in g h is r e qu e s t f

o r a s p ecia l issue
r e qu i r i n g t h e j u r

y t o e x p r e s s l y f

i n d t h a tt h e s t a t e m e n tw a s o r w a s n o tv o l u n t ar

y. Th e c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls h a s c on sis te ntl y

he ld that a def

e nd ant is not e nti tle d to
a sp e c i a l i s s u e o f

t h e s o rtr e qu e s t e d

b y a p p e l l an tr e g ar d i n g t h e v o l u n t ar i n e s s o f a s t a t e m e nt. Ro bin so n v . S

tate , 8 51 S.W. 2d

21 6, 23 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ) ( op . o n r e h’ g ); Br own v . S tate , 475 S.W .2d 938, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972), overruled on othe r grounds , B r a d f o rd v . Sta te , 608 S.W. 2d 91 8, 92 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ); Ha rri s v . S tate , 457 S.W .2d 903, 915-16 (Te x . Crim. App. 1970), rev’d on other grounds , 4 03 U. S. 9 47 (1 97 1). A pp e lla nt a rgue s th a t w ith out an e xpre ss finding by

the jury , a def

endant c annot know whe ther the err oneous admiss ion of a stateme nt was harmful. That is an argument appellant is in no position to make because he does not challeng e the court’s f inding that his statement wa s voluntary
. The instructions g iven wer e sufficie nt to protect appellant’ s rig hts. Poi nt of err or one is over ruled. I n point of err or two, appe llant contends that the procedur e by which extraneous offe nses ar e admitted at the punishment stag e violates due proce ss and due course of law. See U. S. Con st. ame nd . X I V; Tex . Cons t. a rt . I , § 19 . A t th e punis hme nt s ta g e , th e tr ia l c ourt may a dmi t evidenc e “of an ex trane ous crime or bad ac t that is shown bey ond a re asonable doubt by evidenc e3

to have be en committed by the def end an t o r fo r whi ch he c ould be held cr iminally responsible.” Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 37.07, § 3(a )(1) (West Supp. 2005). The jury must be instructed not to consider evide nce of an extraneous of

fense for which the defe ndant has not bee n convicted without first finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant commit ted the off ense. Huizar
v . S tate , 12 S.W .3d 479, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Appe llant argues that a spe cial issue re quiring the jur y to e xpre ssl y fi nd that the de fe nd ant d id o r d id n ot c omm it the e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e sh ou ld a lso be re quired. Appellant did not reque st the specia l issue he now contends should ha ve bee n g iven. SeeTe x. R. A

pp . P. 33 .1 . E ve n c on st itutio na l c la ims may be wa ive d b y

fa ili ngto o bje c t at tr ia l. Br igg s v . S tate , 789 S.W .2d 918, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The trial court proper ly instructed t h e j u r y a s r e qu i r e d

b y Huizar . Appellant does not c ontend that his g uilt of the extraneous robbe ry was not prove d beyond a reasonable doubt. I n fac t, appellant testified at the punishment stage and admitted his participation in both robberie s. No err or i s prese nted. Point of error two is overrule d. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: De cembe r 8, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh