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

NO. 03-03-00353- CR

Soni a F r aus to , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 90242 57, H ONO RAB LE JON N. WIS SER, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant Sonia Fra usto guilty

of tampering with a

witness. See T e x. Pen. Code Ann. § 36.05 (West 2003). The court as sessed a two-y ear state jail term, suspende d imposit ion of sentence, and place d appellant on community supervision. Appellant’s only point of
e rr or c omp la ins of

the ov e rr uli ngof he r m oti on

fo r n e w tri a l. We wi ll a ff ir m. Appellant and he r two m i n o r d aug hters lived with appe llant’s boy friend, Matthew Ste ff e , a nd his tw o mi no r s on s. Af

te r a pp e lla nt’ s d a ug hte rs c omp la ine d th a t Ste ff e was se xua lly abusing them, appellant lost custody of her daug hters and they went to live with their father (f rom whom appellant wa s divorced) . This prosecution wa s beg un afte r appe llant w rote a letter to one of her da ug hters, C.M., asking her to tell the police that her acc usations a g ainst Steffe w ere untrue, he r fathe r h a d f

or c e d h e r t o ma

ke the a c c us a tio ns , an d sh e real ly wa nte d to liv e wi th a

pp e lla nt. Ap pe lla nt’ s d e fe ns e , a dv a nc e d p ri mari ly thr ou g h h e r o wn te sti mony , wa s that sh e did no t a sk C.M
.2

to t e sti fy fa lse ly a s a lleg e d in

the ind ic tme nt. Ac c or din g to a pp e lla nt, C.M .’ s a c c us a tio ns we re in fac t untrue and the purpose of her le tter wa s to encoura g e C.M. to tell the truth. I n support of her

defe nse, appe llant testified that C.M. is “not a truthful person. She’s
a lw a y s ly ing .” S he sai d tha t sh e be lie ve d C. M. ha d f a lse ly a c c us e d St e ff

e of mis c on du c t be c a

us e “she w ants me bac k with her dad” and “[b] eca use of money . We didn’t have that much mone y . I ’m sure that he r dad does
. ” S h e ad d ed that one of the acc usations C.M. had made ag ainst Steffe inv olv e d St e ff

e kn e e lin g , and th at th is co uld no t be tr ue be c a us e Ste ff e wa s p hy sic a lly

un a ble to kneel due to ba d knees. Appellant also testified that C.M. had falsely acc used Steffe of threatening her w ith a g un. Appellant wa s not allowed to testify at trial that C
. M
. had fa lsely stated in an interview w ith a child protec tive service s (CPS) worke r t hat one of Steffe’ s minor sons, C.S ., “has
se x w ith a ll of the g ir ls in the Ste ff e ho me .” Th e so ur c e of thi s state me nt wa s a re po rt su bmi tte d to
a no the r d istri c t c ourt

in a n unr e la te d c ivi l pr oc e e din g inv olv ingC.S. I n the re po rt , a CPS sp e c ia lis t
rec ounted the deta ils of another CPS wor ker’ s interview with C.M. in w hich she made the quoted statement. Ther e is nothing in the r eport to indicate that the statement wa s false.

F oll ow inghe r c on vic tio n, a pp e lla nt f ile d a mot ion fo r n e w t ri a l a sse rt i n g

that th e CPS repor t was new ly

discovere d evidenc e. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 40.01 1 (W es t Supp. 2004-05). The motion was not supported by an af fidavit. Se e Re

y es v . S tat e , 849 S.W .2d 812, 816 (T e x. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 )
. T h e C P S r e p o rt w a s a t t a c h e d t o t h e m o t i o n b u t n e v e r i n t r o du c e d in
e vid e nc e . E ven if we di sre g a rd the se pr oc e dura l de fe c ts, the re c or d p la inl y sh ow s th a t th e CPS repor t was known to appe llant and her attorney at the time of trial. In fac t, defe nse counse l refe rre d to the report during trial. To obtain a ne w trial on the g round of ne wly discovere d evidenc e, theThe c ourt’s docke t she et shows that afte r a rese tting, appellant’ s motion for new trial was he ard 1 and over ruled seve nty -six day s after sentenc e wa s suspended in open c ourt and one day afte r the motion was overr

uled by operation of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.8(c)
. The re porter’ s rec ord does not include the new

trial hea ring . Be cause the motion had been ove rruled by operation of law, the hear ing was a nullity and could not be considere d on appea l in a ny case . Pa rm e r v . S

tat e , 38 S.W .3d 661, 667 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref ’d). 3 movant must show that the evidence was unknown at the t ime of trial. Mo or e v . S tat e , 882 S.W .2d 844, 849 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Clearly , appellant c ould not make such a showing here
. 1 De sp ite t h e w o r d i n g o f h e r p o i n t o f e r r o r , a p p e l l a n t ’ s a

r g u m e n t t o t h i s C o u rt is primarily conce rned with the trial court’s re fusal to per mit her to testify

reg ardingC.M.’s statement to the CPS worke r. The CPS report wa s hear say . Appellant does not now , and did not at trial, asse rt that the ac count of C.M.’s interview contained in t h e re p o rt was a dmissibl e under a hea rsay exception. Nor did the cour t’s ruling preve nt appellant fr om presenting her de fen s e. As noted
a bo ve , a pp e lla nt w a s p e rm itt e d to te sti fy that C.M
. wa s no t c re dib le , ha d ma de fa lse a c c us a tio ns in the past, and ha d a motive for te stify ing f alsely in this cause. For the reasons stated, the point of e rror is overrule d and the judg ment of convic tion is affirme d.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Affir med Filed: June 15, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh