## NO. 12-07-00309-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

NICHOLAI S

AV ANT DAV

IS, § APPEAL F ROM THE 114TH APPELLANT V . § JU DI CIAL DI STR ICT CO UR T TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § NA CO GD OC HES CO UN

TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Nicholai Savant Da

vis appea ls from his conviction for s ex ual assault. In three issues, he
c ha lle ng e s th e su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e and

argue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt erred in o ve rr uli nghis motion to s uppress. We modify the judg ment, and af

firm as modified.

B ACKG ROUND Appellant lived in the sam e n ei gh borhood as the c omplaining witness a nd her f amily . He b ec am e acqua inted with the family when he helped them move into the ne ighbor hood. The complaining witness, a g irl who was f ifteen y ear s old at t he ti me, had been lef t at home alone w hen her mother

and stepfather we nt to t h e fa m i ly ’s dee r lea se. The mother had a pr emonition that something w as amiss and attempted to call her daug hter. Af

ter seve ral attempts, she finally rea ched her da ug hter. Th e daug hter sounded intoxicated, and the mother rushed home. She e ntere d the mobile home and looked throug h a hole in the door to her da ug hter’s r oom. Throug h the hole, the mother saw A

ppellant eng ag ed in s exual intercour se wit h her da ug hter. She burst into the room, and Appellant g rabbe d his clothes and fle d. The mother g ot h er h u s b an d ’s shotgun w ith more thanM i r anda v . Ar iz ona , 38 4 U

. S. 43 6 , 44 4 , 86 S. C t

. 16 0 2 , 16 1 2 , 16 L. E d

. 2d 69 4 , 70 6 (19 6 6 ). 1 2 passing intent to kill Appellant for violating he r daug hter. I nstead, she called the authorities. And when Appe llant sh ee p ishly returne d to the door of the mobile home to r etrieve his truck key s, the ir a te mot he r o nly thr e ate ne d h im. Pe a c e of fi c e rs arr ive d q

uic kly . T he fi rs t off

ic e r on the sc e ne , a

De pa rtme nt o f P ub lic Sa fe ty trooper, a rrived w hile Ap pellant was still outside the home trying to r etrieve his truck key s. The trooper de tained Appe llant, and soon there afte r put him in a nother office r’s car . The troope r ente red the re sidence and found the complaining witness ly ing in he r bed a nd naked f

rom the wa ist down. He de scribed the g irl as “ve ry incoher ent

. . . like she was inebriate d or impaired.” Her speec h was very slurred , an d s h e wa s unable to tell him what had ha ppened. T he troope r ca lled for a n
a mbu lanc e , a

nd the g ir l w a s ta

ke n to a ho sp ita l. Af te r b e ingre a d a

nd wa ivi nghis Miranda ri g hts , App e lla nt g a ve a re c or de d s ta te me nt i n 1 wh ic h h e a dmi tte d that he ha d g ive n the g ir l a Xa na x p ill and that sh e ha d p e rf or me d o ra l se x on h im, but denied having sexual interc ourse with her. The police inventorie d Appellant’s ve hicle and f ound a pre scription bottle containing Xana x that had bee n presc ribed to Appe llant’s mother. Appellant wa s indicted for two c ounts of sexual assault, one alleg ing that he pene trated the
se xua l or g an o f t

he vic timwi th his se xua l or g an, the oth e r a lle g ingthat he pe ne tr a te d h e r m ou th w ith his se xu a l o r g an . A tr ia l w a s h e ld , an d A p p e ll an t p le a d e d

n o t gu il ty

. A t t

h e c o n c lu s io no f

the prese ntation of evidenc e, Appe llant m o v ed for a direc ted ver dict on both counts. The trial c ourt g ra nte d the mot ion

wi th r e sp e c t to the c ount a lle g ingpe ne tr a tio n o f t he g ir l’ s mo uth , b ut d e nie d it with respec t to the other count. The jury found Appe llant gu i l t y an dassessed punishment at imprisonment for four year s and a f ine of $1,500. This appe al followed.

A D M IS SI O N O F C ONF E S S I ON I n h is f ir st i s s u e , A p p e l l an t c o mp l a i n s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n to suppress his videotape d statement bec ause the State failed to provide the tape of the statement e arlier than twenty

day s befor e trial.3

Appli cable Law I n rele vant par

t, article 38.22 of

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e provide s that

[ n ] o or al or s i g n l an g u ag e s t at eme n t of a n ac cu s ed made as a r es u l t of cu s t odi al i n t er r og at i on s h al l be ad m i ssi b l e a ga i nst t he ac cu sed i n a crim i na l p ro ce ed i ng unless: ( 1) an el ect r oni c r ecor di ng , wh i ch may i ncl ude mot i on p i ct ur e, vi deo t ape, or ot her v isu a l re c o rd ing , i s m a d e o f t h e sta te m e n t; (2 ) p rio r to the sta te m e n t b u t d u rin g the re c o rd ing the a c c u se d is giv e n the w a rn ing in

Su bs ec t i on ( a) of Se ct i on 2 abov e an d t h e ac cu s ed k n owi n g l y , i n t el l i g en t l y , and vo l unt ari l y wai ves any ri ght s set out i n t he warni ng; ( 3) t he r ecor di ng devi ce was capabl e of maki ng an ac cur at e r ecor di ng , t he op er at or w as compe t en t , a n d t h e r ec or di n g i s a cc u r at e an d h as n ot be en a l t er ed; (4) al l voices on t he reco rding are i d ent i f i ed ; and ( 5) not l at er t han t he 20 t h day bef ore t he d at e of

t he procee di ng , t he at t orn ey r epr es en t i n g t h e def

en dan t i s pr ov i ded wi t h a t r u e, c ompl et e, a n d ac cu r at e copy of al l r ecor di ng s of

t he def endan t made un der t hi s ar t i cl e.

T EX .C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN
. art. 3 8

. 2 2 § 3 ( a ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 5 )

. I f th e s tate f a il s to p r o vide the
a c c u s e d w it

h th e c o p ie s o f th e r e c o r d in g s tw e n ty d ay s p r io r to a s u p p r e s s io n h e ar ing or trial, the defe ndant must object at t he pretrial hearing to the s tate’s failure to comply with the statute. La ne
v . St ate , 933 S.W .2d 504, 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). I f a de fenda nt objects, he is entitled to a twenty day continuance of the he aringto examine the copies of the r ecor dings. Id

. I f he does not object, any

complaint reg ardingrec eiving the re cording s twenty day s prior to the hea ring is waived. Id

. Ge ne ra lly , in

or de r t o p res erve an a

pp e llate c omp la int

a bo ut a n a lle g e d tr ia l e rr or , a

pa rt y must have made the complaint known to the trial court by a timely reque st, objection, or motion that

“ state d th e g ro un ds fo r t he ru lin g that th e com pl a ini ngpa rt y so ug ht f ro m th e tr ia l c ourt

wi th sufficie nt specificity

to make the trial court aware of t he complaint, unless the s pecif ic g rounds wer e appar ent from the c ontext .” T EX
. R. A PP . R. 3 3

. 1 (a ). And an a ppellant may

not raise a

n issue on appea l that does not comport with his objection at trial. Swai n v . St ate , 1 8 1 S. W. 3 d 3 5 9 , 3 6 7 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2005). Appli cation On J une 20, 2007, at a

hear ing on his motion to suppress, Appellant lear ned that the police ha d r e c or de d th e state me nt he g a ve in t he po lic e c ar. He ob

je c te d to the ta

pe on the g ro un ds that itA p p e llan t f irst o b je c te d to the tap e a t t ria l o n the b a sis tha t he ha d no t wa ive d his r igh ts b e fo re talk ing to 2 t h e of f i ce r . T h at obj ec t i on w as s u s t ai n ed, bu t t h e St at e of f er ed f u r t h er f ou n dat i on al e v i den ce . Appe l l an t di d n ot r epeat t hat object i on, or t he t i mel i nes s object i on, an d t he t r i al cour t ul t i mat el y admi t t ed t he t ape. 4 had not bee n provided twe nty day s befor e the hearing

. I n response , the t rial court advised Appe llant
and the State to p ic k a

no the r d a te to h e ar t

he mot ion to sup pr e ss. Th e pa rt ie s a pp are ntl y a g re e d to resume the hear ing on July 5, 2007. Appellant did not obje ct to the new hear ing date, which wa s fiftee n day s after he lea rned of the tape, or file a motion for continuance demanding a twenty day delay , pursuant to ar ticle 38.22. He a ppear ed at the r econve ned suppre ssion h ea ri n g and at the tr ial without making a ny further objection about the timeliness of the State’s providing him with the video tape. Instead, he objected to the tape on a

differ ent basis–the identification of the voices–at the rec onvened suppr ession hear ing. A t trial he objec ted only that the “state ment was not m ad e k n o wing ly , intelligently , and voluntarily ,” and that the tape did not visually depict the state ment being m ad e. There fore , no 2 complaint about the twenty day require ment is preser

ved. We over

rule Appe llant’s first issue.

S U FF I C I ENC Y OF THE E VI DE NCE I n h is s e c on d a

nd thi rd iss ue s, Ap pe lla

nt a rgues that the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly

and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s us ta in t

he c on vic tio n. Spe c if

ic a lly , h e argue s th a t th e re is n ot s uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to show that he pe netrated the sexual org an of the child with his sex ual org an. Stand ards of Review The due proce ss gua

rante e of the Fo u rt ee n t h Amendment re quires that a c onviction be supported by leg ally sufficie nt evidence

. See Ja c ks on v . V irg inia , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 15 -1 6, 99 S. Ct

. 27 81 , 27 86 -8 7, 61 L . E d. 2d 56 0 ( 19 79 ); Ros s v

. St ate , 1 3 3 S. W. 3 d 6 1 8 , 6 2 0 ( T e x. Cr im . App. 20 04 ); W i l l i s v . S tat e , 1 9 2 S

. W.3d 585, 592 (Tex. App.–Ty ler 2006, pe t. ref’ d). Evidenc e is not leg ally sufficie nt if, when viewing the evidenc e in a li g ht most favor able to the verdict, we c onclude that no rational trier

of fact co u l d have f

ound the essential e lements of the of fense bey ond a

rea sonable doubt. See Ja c ks on v . V irg inia , 443 U. S. at 31 9, 99 S. Ct . at 27 89 ; see also Johns on v. Sta te , 871 S.W .2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).5

Whil e le gal s u ff

i cienc y is all that is required by

the U.S. Constit ution, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has de termined that the Tex as C o n stitut ion require s review of the fa ctual sufficie ncy

of the e vidence

. Cle wis v . St ate , 9 2 2 S

. W

. 2 d

1 2 6 , 1 2 9

- 3 0 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 )

. In

c on du c tin g a

fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y re vie w o f t

he e vid e nc e , w e mus t f

ir st a ssu me that the e vid e nc e is leg ally sufficie nt. Sant

e lla n v . St ate , 939 S.W .2d 155, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We review the fac tual sufficie ncy

of the e vidence to determine w hether , co n sidering all the evidenc e in a ne utral light, the evidenc e supporting the conviction is too weak to w ithstand scrutiny or the g reat weig ht

and pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e c on tr a dic ts t he jur y ’s ve rd ic t to the e xten t th a t th e ve rd ic t is clea rly wrong and manife stly

unjust. See Wa tso n v

. St ate , 2 04 S.W. 3d

40 4, 41 4– 15 , 4 17 (T e x. Cr im. 2006). A ve rdict will be set aside “only if the evidenc e supporting g uilt is so obviously weak, or the contra ry evidenc e so over

whelming ly

outweig hs the supporting evidenc e, as to re nder the conviction clea rly wrongand manife stly

unjust.” Ortiz

v . St ate , 93 S.W .3d 79, 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). A clea rly wrongand manife stly

unjust verdict occ urs wher e the jury ’s finding “shocks the c onscienc e” or “c lear ly

demonstrates bia s.” Jo ne s v . St ate , 944 S.W .2d 642, 648 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Th e c ount of the ind ic tme nt on wh ic h App e lla nt w a s c on vic te d a lle g e d th a t App e lla nt “ did then and ther e intentionally or knowing ly

cause the pene tration of the se x ual org an of N .M .G., a child who was the n and there y oung er than 17 y ear s of age and not the s pouse of the defe ndant, by defe ndant’s sexual org an.” See T EX
. P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22.011(a) (2)( A) (V ernon Supp. 2008). Appli cation The c omplaining witness wa s under the inf luence of drug s and alc ohol at the time of the assault. She testified that Appe llant had g iven her a pill, which s h e d i d n o t take, a nd later, that Appellant had g iven her

a bee r. The w itness sa id tha t soon afte r drinking part of the be er, she beg an “to fe el funny .” Te sts done on her blood a fter the assault showed that she had a blood alcohol level in excess of the leg al limit for driving a nd t h at s h e h ad Xana x in her sy stem. Poli ce r ecove red a bottle of Xanax in Appellant’s vehic le. The w itness testified that she had no me mory of what happene d afte r drinking the bee r. The emerg ency room nurse w ho examined the victim could not identify any phy sical evide nce of

sexual penetration.T he mo t her ’ s s t at ement was not admi t t ed i nt o evi dence

. 3 6 Th e com pl ain ing wi tne ss’ s mo the r t e sti fi e d th a t sh e “ wa lke d in on [Ap pe lla nt] s e xua lly molesting my

daug hter.” She testified that when she returne d to her home, s h e l o oked into her da ug hte r’ s r oo m thr ou g h the ho le wh e re the do or kn ob wa s mi ssi ngand

“ sa w the de fe nd ant i n my daug hter. I

saw his bar e butt, a

nd saw him thrusting.” She descr ibed Appellant a s naked f rom the waist down and ha

ving a n ere ction. She said Appellant “ was on top of my daug hter. My

daug hter’s leg s were wra

pped ar ound him, or on him.” Appellant’s trial attorney asked the mother about the statement she g ave the police. The attorney asked, “[Y] our st atement say s that at that point y ou saw

3 [Appellant] with his [sex ual org an] in y our daug hter’s [sexual orga n? ]” The mother said, “ Yes, sir.” The c ontested issue her e is whethe r the Stat e p ro v ed that Appellant pene trated the sexual org an of the complaining witness. Viewe d in the light most fa vorable to the verdic t, the mother’s testimony is sufficient evide nce to support the jury ’s conc lusion that Appellant penetrated the sexual

or g an o f th e compla ini ngwi tne ss. Th e re fo re , w e ho ld t hat th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly su ff ic ie nt t o support the conviction. Appe llant’s second issue is over ruled. We rea ch the same re sult after r eviewing the fac tual sufficie ncy of the e vidence . Appellant arg ues th a t t

h e mo th e r ’ s te s ti mo n y

th a t s h e s aw A p p e ll an t “ thr u s ti n g ” is n o t s u f

f ic ie n t t o p r ove pe ne tr a tio n. He fu

rt he r a rgue s th a t he r t e sti mony is unr e lia ble be c a us e he r s ta te me nts su g g e st a
rac ial bias ag ainst Appellant and be cause o f d i s cr ep ancie s in her stateme nt to the police and he r te sti mony a t tr ia l. T his is a

qu e sti on of the c re dib ili ty

of the wi tnes s, and th e ju ry wa s in the be st p o s it io n to w e ig h an y b ia s o r in c o n s is te n c y an d to d e te r mi n e w h e th e r h e r te s ti mo n y s h o u ld be

c re dit e d. I n li g ht o f a ll of th e evi den c e , a nd the a pp ro pr ia te sta

nd ard of re vie w, the e vid e nc e is fac tually sufficie nt to support the jury ’s conc lusion reg ardingpenetr ation and to s upport the conviction. Appellant’ s third issue is overruled.

C ONCL US I ON We have ove rruled A

ppellant’s thre e issues. W e also note t hat t he written judgme nt does not

r e f le c t t h e f in e a s s e s s e d

b y th e ju r y . A c c o r d in g ly , w e m odify the judg ment to refle ct a f ine of7

$1,500. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 3. 2( b) ; Bla y lock v . St ate , 259 S.W .2d 202, 212 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2008, pet. re f’d) (holding that an appellate court’s authority to ref orm judgme nt is not dependent on the re quest of any

party ). W e af fi rm the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt as m odified

.



### S AM GRI FF I T H J ustice

Opinion delivere d November 26, 2008. Pane l co ns i s t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)