## NO. 12-07-00229-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

DA MO N T . W IL SON , § APP EAL FRO

M T HE T HIR D APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § AN DE RSO N C OU NTY, TE XAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Damon T. Wilson appeals his co n v i ct i on for a g g ravated sexual assault of a c hild and indece ncy with a child. After

finding him guilty , the jury assessed punishment at imprisonment for twenty -five y ear s and twenty y ear s, respe ctively . In his sole issue, Appellant contends he was de nied
a fa ir se nte nc inghe ari ng . We a ff ir m.

B ACKG ROUND A j u ry found Appe llant guilty

of ag g ravated sexual assault of a c hild and one count of indece ncy with a child. Ev i d en ce wa s prese nted in the sentenc ing pha se and the court a llowed a brea k befor e ar g uments. Whil e the jury was sti ll out of the cour troom, the trial judg e stated on the
rec ord that he r ece ived a note f rom t h e j ury

fore man that Appellant’ s wife c onfronted one of the jurors during the l ast brea k. The judg e aske d Mrs. Wil son whom she talked to. She denie d talking to a nyon e on the jur y . T he jud g e sa id h e wo uld take up the matte r l ate r bu t ann ou nc e d h e wo uld instr u c t th e ju r y th at th e y s h o u ld n o t ta

k e into c o n s id e r ati o n any th in g th e y h e ar d d

ur in g r e c e s s or consider “ any

body they talked to.” The jud ge then asked the pa rties, “Any

thing e lse nee d to be2

do ne ? ” Couns e l for the State and c ouns e l for Ap pe lla nt bot h re sp on de d, “ No , You

r Ho no r. ” B oth sides then re viewed the court’s written cha rg e to the jury , whi ch d i d not mention the incident involving Mrs. Wilson, and neither side ha d any objections to the cha

rg e. Whe n th e jur

y wa s b ro ug ht b a c k to t

he c ourt ro om, the jud g e ma de the fo llo wi ngstate me nt:

I’m go ing to a c k n o w le d g e re c e ip t o f th e no te tha t yo u r p re sid ing ju ro r g a v e to m e a b o u t a conf r ont at i on dur i ng t he brea k. I ’ l l d eal wi t h t hat l at er . R i gh t now I ’ l l gi ve y ou t he i ns t r uct i on t hat yo u sh o u ld n o t l e t t h a t p la y a n y p a rt in yo u r d e lib e ra tio n s d u rin g this p h a se o f t h e c a se , an d to ta lly d isre g a rd tha t, a n d tha t sho u ld no t ha v e a n y a ff e c t [sic ] o n yo u r d e lib e ra tio n s o r w h a t ap p ro p ria te puni s hment y ou ha ve. I wi l l deal wi t h t hat at a l at er t i me. Counsel pr esente d their arguments, and the jury deliberated and returne d with its verdic t. The trial court re ad the ve rdict and the n asked c ounsel for both sides if they neede d to raise “any thing be fore the jury is discharg ed.” Counsel f or both sides said “no.” The c ourt pronounce d the sentenc es found by the jury . The c ourt then orde red Mr s. Wi lson to appear at a he aring to be held in three day s and show ca use why she should not be held in contempt for c onfrontinga juror. B efor e discha rg ing the jur y , th e c ourt

a sk e d th e pr os e c uto r t o s pe ak to the jur or s a bo ut t he inc ide nt.

S E NT E NCI NG P H A SE In his sole issue, Appellant contends the trial court er re d i n not declar ing a mistrial or
c on du c tin ga

he ari ngto i nq

uir e a s to wh e the r i nte ra c tio n b e tw e e n M rs . Wil so n a nd a jur or wo uld aff ect the jur or’s de liberation or de cision. He a rgues that the juror was allowed to conside r evide nce that was not i n troduce d in open cour t or subject to cr oss examination. Further, he complains that the trial cour

t ga ve only an ora l instruction to the j ury , rathe r t han a written instruction conce rning the inc ide nt. Th e re fo re , h e c on te nd s, he wa s d e nie d a fa ir se nte nc ingtr ia l. To pr e se rv e a

c omp la int

fo r o ur re vie w, a pa rt y mus t ha ve pr e se nte d to the tr ia l c ourt a tim e ly reque st, objection, or motion stating the g rounds for the ruling soug ht. S ee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1. Th e tr ia l c ourt

g ave Ap pe lla

nt t he op po rt un ity to r a ise the se c omp la int s, and any oth e rs , at tr ia l. Instead of pr esentingthese c omplaints to t he trial c ourt, Appellant spec ifically stated on the re cord that no thi ngmor e ne e de d to be do ne a bo ut t he matte r o f h is w if

e ’s int e ra cti on wi th a

jur or . A s a result, Appellant ha s waived his complaints. Id. We overrule Appellant’s sole issue.3 D I S P OS I T I ON We af fi rm the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.



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

Opinion delivere d September 3, 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)