No. 06-15-0042-CR 06-15-0043-CR 06-15-0044-CR 06-15-0045-CR 06-15-0046-CR IN THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

at TEXARKANA

________________________________________________ RICHARD DARBY, III, Appellant vs. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________

Appeal from the 102 District Court nd of Bowie County, Texas

________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

_________________________________________________ Troy Hornsby Miller, James, Miller & Hornsby, L.L.P. 1725 Galleria Oaks Drive Texarkana, Texas 75503 troy.hornsby@gmail.com 903.794.2711, f. 903.792.1276 Attorney for Appellant Richard Darby, III Oral Argument Requested ACCEPTED 06-15-00042-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 6/4/2015 2:29:00 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK2 I DENTITY O F P AR TIE S A ND C OUNS EL Purs uant t o T ex as Ru le of Appe llate P ro ce dur e 38. 1( a) , the f oll ow ing is a co m ple te li st o f al l part ie s to the tr ia l c ourt’ s j udgm ent and the nam es and ad dr es se s of

a ll tr ia l and a

ppe llate c ouns el : Ap pellant Ap pellant’ s appellate c ounsel Ri ch ar d D ar

by , I II T ro y H or nsby Miller, James, M

iller, &Hornsby, L

LP 1725 G al le ri a O ak s D ri ve T ex ar kana , T ex as 755 03 Ap pellant’ s trial counsel Wi l l Wi l l i ams Bowie C o. Public D efender' s Of fice 424 W . B road Stree t T ex ar kana , T ex as 755 01 Ap pellee Ap pellee's app ellate/trial coun sel St at e of T ex as K el le y G oss ett C ri sp Bowie C ount y

Dist. Attorney 's O ffice 601 Main Street T ex ar kana , T ex as 755 013 T AB LE OF C ONTENTS I d e n t i ty o f P art i e s an dC o un s e l ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 2 T ab l e o f C o n t e n t s ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 3 I n d e x o f Au th o r i t i e s ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 6 S t at e m e n to f

th e C a s e ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 11 I s s u e s P r e s e n t e d ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 12 S t at e m e n to f

O r a l Ar g um e n t ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 13 S t at e m e n to f

F a c t s ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 14 S um m ary o f th e Ar g um e n t ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 17 A r g um e n t ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 20 Iss ue 1: D id the S tate pr ove be y ond a re as ona ble doubt that D ar

by c om m i tt e d tw o un a dj ud i c at e d se xu a l a ss aul t s? . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 P r e s e rv at i o no f

E rr o r ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 20 S t an d ar do f

R e v i e w ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 21 L awan dAp p l i c at i o n ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 22 H arm f u l E rr o r ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 25 Iss ue 2: W as the pr obativ e va lue of tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s by D ar by sub stanti al ly

outw ei ghe d by

the dange r of

unf ai r p r e j u d i c e ? . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 27 P r e s e rv at i o no f

E rr o r ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 27 S t an d ar do f

R e v i e w ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 28 L awan dAp p l i c at i o n ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 29 ( 1 ) P r o b at i v e F o r c e ....... ....... ....... .... 30 (2) State’ s Nee d for E vidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 (3) Te ndency

to Suggest Decision on Im proper B a s i s ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 31 (4) Te ndency

to Confuse or Distrac t . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 (5 ) T en de nc y

to Be G ive n Undue W ei ght . . . . . . . . 33 ( 6 ) C o n s um e T i m e ....... ....... ....... ..... 33 H arm f u l E rr o r ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 34 Iss ue 3: W as e vid en ce of an a lle ge d di sc uss ionof

e sc ap e by

D ar by properly adm itted as im

peachm ent evidence? . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 P r e s e rv at i o no f

E rr o r ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 35 S t an d ar do f

R e v i e w ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 36 L awan dAp p l i c at i o n ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 36 H arm f u l E rr o r ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 39 Iss ue 4: W as a proper f ound ation laid for the adm issio n of a co nve rs at ionbe tw ee n D ar by and h is f athe r at the j ai l r e g ar d i n g e s c ap e ? ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 41 P r e s e rv at i o no f

E rr o r ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 41 S t an d ar do f

R e v i e w ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 42 L awan dAp p l i c at i o n ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 42 H arm f u l E rr o r ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 45 Iss ue 5: D ar

by w as c onvi ct ed

of athi rd de gr ee f el ony of e va din g ar re st ( w ithave hic le ). S houl d th is h av e be enastate j ai l fe lony pur suant t o th e co ntr ad ic tor y T ex as P en al Co de se ct ion 3 8 . 0 4 ? ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 47 P r e s e rv at i o no f

E rr o r ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 47 S t an d ar do f

R e v i e w ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 495 L awan dAp p l i c at i o n ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 49 H arm f u l E rr o r ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 53 Iss ue 6: Darby ’ s judgm ent for aggravated r obbery (of a senior) inc or re ct ly r ef le ct ed aple a of not gui lty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Iss ue 7: D ar

by ’ s j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( w ithade ad ly w ea pon) inc or

re ct ly r ef le ct ed aple a of not gui lty . . . . . . . . . 55 Iss ue 8: D ar

by ’ s j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( w ithade ad ly w ea pon) inc or

re ct ly r ef le ct ed aple a of not gui lty . . . . . . . . . 55 P r e s e rv at i o no f

E rr o r ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 55 S t an d ar do f

R e v i e w ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 56 L awan dAp p l i c at i o n ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 56 H arm f u l E rr o r ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 57 P r ay e r ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 58 C e rt i f i c at e o f S e rv i c e ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 59 C e rt i f i c at e o f C o m p l i an c e ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 606 I N D E X O F A UTHORI TIES C AS ES : P AGE A de tom iw a v . Sta te , 421 S. W . 3d 9 22 ( T ex . App. ) Fo rt Wort h 2 01 4, n o p et .) . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 52 A ldr ic k v. Sta te , 104 S. W . 3d 8 90 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 A ngleton v . Sta te , 971 S. W . 2d 6 5 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B rum it v. Sta te , 206 S. W . 3d 6 39 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Ca bal le ro v . Sta te , 919 S. W . 2d 9 19 ( T ex . App. —H oust on [ 14th D ist . ] 199 6, pe t. r ef ' d) . . . . 29 Ch am pio n v . Sta te , 281 S. W . 546 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 192 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 D av is v . Sta te , 31 5 S .W .3d90 8 (Te x. Ap p.— Hou st on [14 th Dis t.] 20 10 ), re v' d on oth er

gro unds , 349 S . W . 3d 5 17 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 201 1) . . . . . . . 25 Exparte Beck, 922 S. W . 2d 1 81 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 E x parte P en a , 71 S . W . 3d 3 36 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Ex pa rt e W

il li ams , AP-7 6,4 55 (Tex . Cri m . App . Ju ne 13 , 20 12 )(m em . op .) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 F le tc he r v . Sta te , 852 S. W . 2d 2 71 ( T ex . App. —D al la s 19 93, pe t. r ef ' d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 F lores v . Sta te , 12 5 S .W .3d74 4 (Te x. Ap p.— Hou st on [1 Dis t.] 20 03 , no pe t.) . . . . . . . . st 29 G arc ia v . Sta te , 149 S. W . 3d 1 35 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477

G igl iob ian co v . Sta te , 210 S. W . 3d 6 37 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 G ips on v . Sta te , 619 S. W . 2d 1 69 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 198 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 39 G rayv . Sta te , 628 S.W .2d 228 (Tex. App. —Corpus Christi 19 82, pet. ref’ d) . . . 55, 56, 57 G re en v . Sta te , 840 S. W . 2d 3 94 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 H all v . Sta te , 13 S . W . 3d 1 15 ( T ex . App. ) Fo rt. Worth 2 00 0) , pet. dism' d, im providen tly grant ed, 46 S . W . 3d 2 64 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 H ay de n v . Sta te , 296 S. W . 3d 5 49 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 H ea th v . Sta te , 817 S. W . 2d 3 35 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 H ernand ez -M unoz v . Sta te , No. 14-11-007 30-CR (T ex . App. ) Hou st on [14 th Dis t.] Dec. 28 , 20 12 , no pe t.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Iv eyv . Sta te , 25 0 S .W .3d12 1 (Te x. Ap p.—Aus ti n 2 00 7) , aff'd , 277 S . W . 3d 4 3 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Iv oryv . Sta te , 632 S. W . 2d 6 14 ( T ex . Cr im . App. [ Pane l O p. ] 198 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Ja ck son v. Sta te , 575 S. W . 2d 5 67 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 1979 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 28, 36, 42 Ja ube rt v . Sta te , 74 S.W .3d1 (Tex . Cri m . App .), cert. denied , 537 U . S. 100 5 ( 2002 ) . . . . 38 Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 69 8 S .W .2d15 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 85 ), cert. denied , 1 0 7 S . C t . 2 3 9 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ....... ....... ....... . . 21, 28, 36, 428

Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 967 S. W . 2d 4 10 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 34, 39, 46, 53 Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 43 S . W . 3d 1 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 34, 39, 40, 46, 53 Ki ng v . Sta te , 953 S. W . 2d 2 66 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 34, 39, 45, 53 Lu na v . Sta te , 288 S. W . 465 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 192 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 56, 57 M ari n v . Sta te , 851 S. W . 2d 2 75 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 M cF arland v. Sta te , 84 5 S .W .2d82 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 92 ), ov erruled in part on o the r ground

s by B ing ham v . Sta te , 915 S. W . 2d 9 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 M en de z v . Sta te , 138 S. W . 3d 3 34 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 27, 35, 41, 47 M itc he ll v. Sta te , 931 S. W . 2d 9 50 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 M ize ll v. Sta te , 119 S. W . 3d 8 04 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 49 M ont gom er y v. Sta te , 810 S. W . 2d 3 72 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 M osleyv . Sta te , 98 3 S .W .2d24 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 98 ) (o p. o n re h'g ), cert. denied , 526 U . S. 107 0, 119 S . Ct . 146 6, 143 L . E d. 2d 5 50 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 20, 27, 35, 41, 47 M oti lla v . Sta te , 78 S . W . 3d 3 52 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 R am se y v. D unlop , 146 T ex . 196 , 205 S . W . 2d 9 79 ( 1947 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489

R eesev . Sta te , 33 S . W . 3d 2 38 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 R odri gue z v . Sta te , 71 S.W .3d80 0 (Te x. Ap p.— Tex ark an a 2 00 2, n o p et .) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 R oge rs v . Sta te , 991 S. W . 2d 2 63 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 R uiz v . Sta te , 579 S. W . 2d 2 06 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 197 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 R ushi ng v . Sta te , 50 S.W .3d71 5 (Te x. Ap p.—W aco 20 01 ), aff'd , 85 S . W . 3d 2 83 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Santel lan v . Sta te , 939 S. W . 2d 1 55 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 28, 36, 42 Sc hut z v . Sta te , 63 S . W . 3d 4 42 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 34, 39, 40, 46, 53 Sm ith v . Sta te , 899 S. W . 2d 3 1 ( T ex . App. ) Aust in 1 995, pe t. r ef ’ d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 31 Spe th v . Sta te , 6 S . W . 3d 5 30 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Splaw n v . Sta te , 160 S. W . 3d 1 03 ( T ex . App. ) T ex ar kana200 5, pe t. r ef

' d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 State v. Sneed, N o. 09- 14- 0023 2- CR

( T ex . App. ) Be aum ont

S ep t. 24, 201 4, no p et ) . . . . 52 To rres v . Sta te , 79 4 S .W .2d59 6 (Te x. Ap p.—Aus ti n 1 99 0, n o p et .) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 W all v . Sta te , 184 S. W . 3d 7 30 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 W erne r v . Sta te , 711 S. W . 2d 6 39 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 198 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 28, 36, 4210

S TATUTES /RULES : T ex . Co de Cr im . P ro . Ann. art . 37. 07 § 3 ( W es t su pp. 201 4) . . . . . . 22, 23, 25, 31, 37 T ex . Co de Cr im . P ro c. Ann. art . 44. 29( b) ( W es t su pp. 201 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 T ex . P en . Co de Ann. §12 . 34 ( W es t 20 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 T ex . P en . Co de Ann. §12. 35 ( W es t su pp. 201 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 53 T ex . P en . Co de Ann. §38 . 04 ( W es t su pp. 201 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 51 T e x . R . Ap p . P . 3 3 . 1 ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 20, 27, 35, 41, 47, 55 T e x . R . Ap p . P . 4 4 . 2 ( b ) ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 25, 34, 39, 45, 53 T e x . R . E v i d . 4 0 3 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 17, 27, 28, 29, 30 T e x . R . E v i d . 9 0 1 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 42, 43, 44, 45 O THER : W EBSTE R ' S T HI RD N E W I NT ' L D I CT I ONARY 1 9 2 1 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ....... ....... ..... 3911 S TATEMENT O F T HE C ASE Nature of case: This is an appeal fr om conviction s for the offe nses of: (1) evading arre st (with a vehicle) , 14F98-10 2 (C. R. [6-15-42-CR] pg. 124) (2 ) ag gr av at edrob be ry

(of a se ni or ), 14F133 -102 (C.R . [ 6-15-43-CR] pg. 128) (3 ) ag gr av at edrob be ry

(de ad ly w eap on ), 14F179 -102 (dollar general) (C. R. [6-15-44-CR] pg. 126) (4 ) ag gr av at edrob be ry

(de ad ly w eap on ), 14F252 -102 (Shell) (C . R. [ 6- 15- 46- CR ] pg. 123 ) an d (5 ) th eft($1 ,50 0 - $ 20 ,00 0) , 14F180 -102 (C.R . [ 6-15-45-CR] pg. 130) Ju dge /C ourt : Judg e Bo bby

L oc khart sittin g inthe 102 D istri ct Co urt of nd Bo w ie Co unty , T ex as . ( C. R. [ 6- 15- 42- CR ] pg. 124 ;[ 6- 15- 43- CR ] pg. 128 ); [6 -1 5- 44- CR ] pg. 126 ;C . R. [ 6- 15- 46- CR ] pg. 123; [6-15-45-CR] pg. 130). P le as : Ri ch ar d D ar by , I II ( D ar

by ) ente re d pl ea s of

“ gui lty ” to a ll of the indictm ents against hi m . ( R.R . vol. IVpg. 10-17). Tr ial dis posi tio n: Punis hm ent w as tr ie d to aj ur y whic h f ound the f oll ow ing : (1 ) ev ad ing arr es t ( w ithave hic le ) 10 y ears (C . R. [ 6- 15- 42- CR ] pg. 106 ) (2) aggravated r obbery

(senior) 45 y ears (C . R. [ 6- 15- 43- CR ] pg. 107 ) ( 3 ) a g g r av at e dr o b b e ry (deadly we apon) 45 y ears (C . R. [ 6- 15- 44- CR ] pg. 108 ) (4) aggravated r obbery (deadly we apon) 45 y ears (C . R. [ 6- 15- 46- CR ] pg. 110 ) (5) theft ( $1,500 - $20,000 ) 2 y ears (C . R. [ 6- 15- 45- CR ] pg. 109 ) T hose se nte nc ed

w er e im pose d by the tr ia l c ourt t o r

un co nc ur re ntl y . ( C. R. [ 6- 15- 42- CR ] pg. 124 ;[ 6- 15- 43- CR ] pg. 128) ;[ 6- 15- 44- CR ] pg. 126 ;C . R. [ 6- 15- 46- CR ] pg. 123 ; [ 6- 15- 45- CR ] pg. 130 )12 I SSUES P RES ENTED Iss ue 1: Did the State prove bey ond a reasonable doub t that Dar by com m itted tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s? Iss ue 2: W as the pr obativ e va lue of tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s by Darby subst antially

outweighed by

the danger of unfair pre

j udice? Iss ue 3: W as e vid en ce of an a lle ge d di sc uss ionof

e sc ap e by

D ar by pr ope rl y adm itted as im

peachm ent evidence? Iss ue 4: W as apr ope r fo undatio n la id f or the a dm iss ionof

ac onve rs at ion betwee n Dar

by and his father at the j ail regar ding escape? Iss ue 5: D ar

by w as c onvi ct ed

of athi rd de gr ee f el ony of e va din g arr es t ( w itha ve hic le ). S houl d th is h av e be enastate j ai l f el ony pur suant t o th e c ontr a di c t or

y T e xa s P e na l C od e s e c t i on3 8. 04 ? Iss ue 6: D ar

by ’ s j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( of ase nio r) inc or

re ct ly r e f l e c t e dap l e ao f

n o tg u i l ty. Iss ue 7: D ar

by ’ s j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( w ithade ad ly

w ea pon) i n c o rr e c t l y re f

l e c t e dap l e ao f

n o tg u i l ty. Iss ue 8: D ar

by ’ s j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( w ithade ad ly

w ea pon) i n c o rr e c t l y re f

l e c t e dap l e ao f

n o tg u i l ty.13 S TATEMENT OF O RAL A RGUMENT Oral argument might assist the Court in considering the admissibility and impact of the two unadjudicated sexual assaults and the escape discussion.14 S TATEMENT O F F ACTS It is undis puted th at on January 21, 2014, Darby

and another person wer e w al kin g in

ar es ide nti al are a in N as h. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 101 -3 ; vo l. V I pg. 263 - 264) . D ar by e nte re d ac ar

port, r em ove d an a ll te rr ai n ve hic le and dro ve it to a ne ar by w oode d are a. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 101 -3 ; vo l. V I pg. 263 -2 64) . D ar by soo n re tur ne d to the w oode d are a to r etri ev e an d se ll the a ll te rr ai n ve hic le . ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 101 -3 ; vo l. V I pg. 263 -2 64) . T his w as the ba sis of D ar by ’ s c onvi ct ionf

or theft ($1,500 to $20 ,000) in cause num ber 14-F-180-102 and appeal num ber 06-15-00 45-CR. It is undi sput ed

that e igh t day s late r, on J anuary 29, 201 4, D ar

by e nte re d a Sh el l ga s st at ionin T ex ar kana , T ex as . ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 306 -3 10; vol . V II pg. 104 - 105) . D ar by ’ s f ac e w as c ove re d w ithawhit e m as k and h e w as c ar ry ing a De rringer pistol. (R .R. vol. V I pg. 306-310; vo l. V II pg. 104-105 ). Darby point ed th e g un at the cle rkan d d em an de d m on ey an d abo x o f Ci ga rel lo s. (R .R. vo l. VI pg. 306 -3 10; vol . V II pg. 104 -1 05) . T he c le rk gave D ar by $30 0 to $40 0 and the Ci gare llo s and D ar

by le ft w ithboth. ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 306 -3 10; vol . V II pg. 104 - 105) . T his w as the ba sis of D ar by ’ s c onvi ct ionf

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( w itha deadly we apon) in cause num

ber 14-F-252-102 and appeal num ber 06-15-00 46-CR. It is also undi sputed th at six day s later, on February 4, 2014, D arby

entered a D oll ar G en er al sto re in N as h, T ex as . ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 266 -7 ; vo l. V II pg. 107 - 110; vol. V II pg. 8-13). Darby ’ s face wa s covered w ith a bandana and he was15

carr y ing a Der

ringer pistol. (R. R. vol. VI pg. 266-7; vol . V II pg. 107-110 ; vol. VI I pg. 8-13). Darby

point ed the gun at the clerk and dem anded m oney from the safe and cash register. (R. R. vol. VI pg. 266-7; vol . V II pg. 107-110 ; vol. VI I pg. 8-13). The cle rkga ve Darb y

ab ou t $ 70 0 andDarb y

lef t wi th th e m on ey . (R.R. vo l. VI p g . 2 6 6 -7 ; v o l . VI I p g . 1 0 7 -1 1 0 ; v o l . VI I p g . 8 -1 3 ). Th i s wa s th e b as i s o f D arb y’ s convictio n for aggravated r obbery (w ith a deadly

we apon) in cause num

ber 14-F179-10 2 and appeal num

ber 06-15-0044 -CR. It is undis puted th at three day s later, on February 7, 2014, D arby

saw an elderly wom an pullin g her car

into her driveway

in W ake V illage. ( R.R . vol. VI I pg. 113-114 ; vol. VI I pg. 30-35). Darby , his fa ce covere d with a bandana, grabbed the w om an ’ s purs e fr om

he r as she w as unl oa din g it em s f ro m he r car . (R . R. vol . V II pg. 113 -1 14; vol . V II pg. 30- 35) . T he tw o sc uf fl ed ove r the pur se . ( R. R. vol . VI I pg. 113-114; vo l. V II pg. 30-35). D arby obtained th e purse and ran to his car an d dr ove aw ay . ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 113 -1 14; vol . V II pg. 30- 35) . T his w as the basis of Dar

by ’ s convictio n for aggravated r obbery (of a senior) in cause num ber 14-F-133-102 and appeal num ber 06-15-0043 -CR. It is undis puted th at im

m ediately thereaf ter, the W ake V illage Police D ep ar tm ent di spatc h no tif

ie d th ei r of

fi ce rs to be on the loo kout f or abla ck m al e driving a four door re d or m aroon car, who had j ust been inv olved inan ag gr av at ed

r obbe ry of the e lde rl y

w om an . ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 113 -1 14; vol . V I pg. 292-29 8). Of

ficer s in an unm arked police car and another m arked police car spotte d ave hic le m at ch ing the de sc ri pti on, whic h w as dr ive n by D ar by . ( R. R. vol .16

VI I pg. 113-114; vo l. V I pg. 292-298). B oth pu rsued Dar by ’ s vehicle, the m arked pol ic e ve hic le pur sue d w ithit s li ght s and s ir en s. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 113 -1 14; vol . V I pg. 292 -2 98) . D ar

by did not pul l ov er , but

le ad the tw o po lic em enon a

pur sui t. (R .R . v o l . VI I p g . 1 1 3 -1 1 4 ; v o l . VI p g . 2 9 2 -2 9 8 ). Th i s wa s th e b as i s o f D arb y’ s co nvi ct ionf

or e va din g arr es t ( in a

ve hic le ) in c au se num

be r 14- F- 098- 102 an d appeal num

ber 06-15-0042 -CR. The S tate alleges that during pretrial detention at the Bi-State Justice Buildin g, D arby

wa s invo lved in two sexual assaults of a f ellow inm ate by

several inm at es . ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 172 -1 99) . A ddi tio na lly , the S tate a lle ge s th at dur ing a j ail visit between D arby

and his father, Darby

discussed escape. (R .R. vol. IX St at e’s Ex. 4 6) . Howev er, Darb y co nt en ds he was m erel y

jok in g wi th hi s fa th er.17 S UMM ARY O F T HE A RGUMENT Iss ue 1: Did the State prove bey ond a reasonable doub t that Dar by com m itted tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s? T he tr ia l c ourt a dm itt ed

e vid en ce of

D ar by ’ s invol ve m ent i n tw o una dj udi cate d se xua l a ssa ult s. H ow ev er , the S tate did not e sta bli she d th at

the se of fe nse s w er e co m

m itt ed by D ar by be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt, a s r equir ed

by T ex as Co de of

Cr imina l P ro ce dur e ar

tic le 37. 07.

Iss ue 2: W as the pr obativ e va lue of tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s by Darby subst antially

outweighed by

the danger of unfair pre

j udice? T he pr obativ e va lue of

the tw o un ad

j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s by D ar by w as redundant and th eref

ore, low. H owever , the unfair prej udicial danger was ex tr em el y hig h. A s su ch , e vid en ce of the tw o un ad

j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s by D ar by w er e ina dm iss ab le pur suant t o T ex as Ru le of E vid en ce 403 . Iss ue 3: W as e vid en ce of an a lle ge d di sc uss ionof

e sc ap e by

D ar by pr ope rl y adm itted as im

peachm ent evidence? T he tr ia l c ourt a llo w ed

the S tate to adm it ev ide nc e of an a lle ge d di sc uss ion of e sc ap e by

D ar by , e ve n th oughthe e vid en ce ha d no t be endis cl ose d by the S tate to Dar by prior to trial. This evidence should h ave been excluded by the trial court be ca use it w as not a dm iss ibl e to r eb ut D ar

by ' s te sti m ony

of his r em or se a s to the of fen se s.18

Iss ue 4: W as apr ope r fo undatio n la id f or the a dm iss ionof

ac onve rs at ion betwee n Dar

by and his father at the j ail regar ding escape? The S tate did not establi sh a com plete foundatio n for the adm issio n of the r ec or de d te le phon e co nve rs at ionbe tw ee n D ar by and h is f athe r re gard ing es ca pe be ca use the S tate did

not e sta bli sh that the c al l i nvol ve d D ar by ’ s ph one num be r, or som e oth er

f ac t l ink ing D ar

by to the te le phon e ca ll. A cc or din gly , the tri al co urt s ho ul d n otha ve adm it te d the reco rd in g.

Iss ue 5: D ar

by w as c onvi ct ed

of athi rd de gr ee f el ony of e va din g arr es t ( w itha ve hic le ). S houl d th is h av e be enastate j ai l f el ony pur suant t o th e c ontr a di c t or

y T e xa s P e na l C od e s e c t i on3 8. 04 ? D ar by w as f ound gui lty of e va din g arr es t ( w ithave hic le ), astate j ai l fe lony . Re gard le ss, the j udgm ent r ef le ct ed ac onvi ct ionof

athi rd de gr ee f el ony an d the pu ni sh m en t ch arg e co nt ai ne d ath irdde gr ee fe lo ny puni sh m en t ra ng e. T he re fo re , D ar

by r ec ei ve d th e inc or

re ct pun ishm ent r an ge in the pun ishm ent ch arg e an d asen te nc e o ut si de th e ap pr op ria te pu ni sh m en t ra ng e.

Iss ue 6: D ar

by ’ s j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( of ase nio r) inc or

re ct ly r e f l e c t e dap l e ao f

n o tg u i l ty. Iss ue 7: D ar

by ’ s j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( w ithade ad ly

w ea pon) i n c o rr e c t l y re f

l e c t e dap l e ao f

n o tg u i l ty. Iss ue 8: D ar

by ’ s j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( w ithade ad ly

w ea pon) i n c o rr e c t l y re f

l e c t e dap l e ao f

n o tg u i l ty. T he j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( of ase nio r) and tw o j udgm ents19

for aggravated robbery (with a deadly weapon) all incorrectly reflect that Darby pled not guilty. The three judgments should reflect pleas of guilty. These are typographical errors that this Court should correct on the three judgments.20 A RGUMENT Iss ue 1: Did the State prove bey ond a reasonable doub t that Dar by com m itted tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s? The tri al co urt ad m it te d e vi de nc e o f Darb y ’s in vo lv em en t i n two una dj udi cate d se xua l a ssa ult s. H ow ev er , the S tate did not e sta bli she d th at

the se of fe nse s w er e co m

m itt ed by D ar by be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt, a s r equir ed

by T ex as Co de of

Cr imina l P ro ce dur e ar

tic le 37. 07. P re se rv at ion of

Er ro r T o pr es er ve ac om pla int f or appe llate r ev ie w , aparty m ust ge ne ra lly have pr es ente d to the tr ia l c ourt a ti m el y r eque st, obj ec tio n, or

m oti on s tatin g th e spe ci fi c gr ound s f

or the de sir ed

r uli ng, if the y are not appare nt f

ro m the c ont ex t of th e reque st , ob

jecti on , or m ot io n. See T ex . R. App. P . 33. 1( a) ; M osleyv . Sta te , 983 S.W .2d24 9, 2 65 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 98 ) (o p. o n re h'g ), cert. denied , 526 U. S. 1070 , 119 S . Ct . 146 6, 143 L . E d. 2d 5 50 ( 1999 ). F urthe r, the tr ia l c ourt m ust have ru le d onthe r eque st, obj ec tio n, or m oti on, e ith er

e xpr es sly

or im pli ci tly , or

the com plainin g party

m ust have ob

j ected to the trial court' s refusal to rule. Te x. R. App. P . 33. 1( a) (2 ); M

en de z v . Sta te , 138 S. W .3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim . App. 2004). A ft er j ur y se le ct ion , but

pr ior to the pun ishm ent tri al , the tr ia l c ourt he ld a he ar ing c onc er

nin g th e adm iss ibi lity

of tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s inv olv ing D ar

by . ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 6- 33) . D ar by obj ec te d to the a dm iss ionof evidence of the two unadj udicated sexual assaults on several basis, including th at21

the S tate c oul d no t e sta

bli sh the of

fe nse s be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. ( R. R. vol . VI pg . 6-3 3) . The i ss ue was d is cu ss edan d d eb at edat g reatlen gt h. (R .R. vo l. VI pg. 6-33). Ultim ately , the tr ial court ruled that the two unadjudicated sexual as saul ts were ad m is si bl e. (R.R. v ol . VI pg . 33 ). L at er in the tr ia l, the tr ia l c ourt r ea ff irm ed it s r uli ng. ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 155 - 156) . A ddi tio na lly , D ar

by r eque ste d ar

unni ng o bj ec tio n to any

e vid en ce of

the tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s, whic h w as gr ante d by the tr ia l c ourt. ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 156 ). F or

goo d m ea sur e, at the e nd o f the S tate ’ s c as e in c hie f, D ar by re que ste d adir ec te d ve rd ic t arg uin g th at the j ur y sho uld not have he ar d or considered the two unadjudicated sexual assaults. (R. R. vol. VI I pg. 44-46). T hat m otion wa s denied bythe trial court. (R. R. vol. VI I pg. 44-46). T his m otion wa s renew ed by

Darby after the defense re sted. ( R.R . vol. VI I pg. 196). T herefor e, th is is su e was pre se rv edforap pe ll at e rev ie w. Stand ard of R eview The dete rm inationof adm issib ility is within the sou nd dis cretion of the trial co urt, Ja ck

son v. Sta te , 575 S . W . 2d 5 67, 570 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 1979 ), and w ill not be rever sed on appeal unl ess a clear abuse of discretion is shown." W erner v. Sta te , 711 S . W . 2d 6 39, 643 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 198 6) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 698 S . W . 2d 15 4, 1 60 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 85 ), cert. denied , 10 7 S .Ct. 2 39 (19 86 ). An ap pe llate c ourt sh oul d no t f ind suc h an a buse of dis cr et ionif

the tr ia l c ourt' s r

uli ng wa s within the "zone of rea sonable dis agreem ent." Santel lan v . Sta te , 939 S . W . 2d22

15 5, 1 69 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 97 ). More specif

ically , an appellate court shoul d reviewa trial c ourt's adm iss ionof

e xtr an eo us- of

fe nse e vid en ce und er

an a buse -o f- dis cr et ionstandard . M itc he ll v. Sta te , 931 S. W .2d 950, 953 (Tex. Crim . App. 1996) (plurality op.). Under this standard, the a ppellate court will upholdthe trial court's r uling if it w as withi n the zo ne of r eas on ab le di sa gr eem en t. H ay de n v . Sta te , 296 S . W . 3d 5 49, 553 (T ex. C rim . App. 2009). La w an d A pp lic at ion The tri al co urt ad m it te d e vi de nc e o f Darb y ’s in vo lv em en t i n two una dj udi cate d se xua l a ssa ult s. H ow ev er , the S tate did not e sta bli sh that the se of fe nse s w er e co m

m itt ed by D ar by be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt whic h is a pr er equis ite e sta

bli she d by

T ex as Co de of

Cr imina l P ro ce dur e ar

tic le 37. 07. Te xas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.07 provides in relevant part as fo llo w s: Sec. 3. E vidence of prior criminal record in all cr im inal cases af ter a fi ndi ng o f gui lty (a)( 1) Regardless of the plea and whether the punishm ent be assessed by the j udge or

the j ur y , e vid en ce m ay

be of fe re d by the state an d th e de fe ndant a s to any m atte r the c ourt de em s r el ev ant t o sentencing, includi ng bu t not lim ited to the prior crim inal record of the defendant, his general r eputation , his chara cter, an opi nio n r eg ar din g hi s c hara ct er , the c ir cum stanc es of the offense for which he is being tried, and, notwithstand ing Rules 404 an d 40 5, T ex as Ru le s of E vid en ce , any

oth er e vid en ce of ane xtr an eo us c ri m e or

ba d a ct that i s sh own be y ond a re as ona ble doubt b y

e vid en ce to have be enc om m itt ed by the defendant or for which he could b e held criminally responsibl e,23 re gard le ss o f whe the r he ha s pr ev iou sly be enc harg ed

w ithor fin al ly con vi ct edof t he cri m e o r act . . . . Te x. Code Cr im . P ro. Ann. art. 37.07 § 3(a)(1) ( W est supp . 2014)(em phases ad de d) . T he re fo re , e vid en ce of an un ad j udi cate d e xtr an eo us o ff

en se m ust be es tabl is he d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Here, the Sta te pre se nt edth e te st im on y of t he in m at e v ic ti m . (R.R. v ol . VI pg. 173-260 ). T he victim testified that he wa s incarcer ated in pre-tria l detention at the Bi -S tate Jus tic e Bu ild ing in a pod use d to hou se y oung er pr iso ne rs . ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 173 -2 60) . I n th e pod w as the vic tim , who w as phy sic al ly the sm al le st and whit e, and R ic hard

D ar by , G re gor

y H oust on, Cr ai g T ay lor , K w es ie W ils on and Ay ende Ge rm any , who are all lar ger than the victim and Af rican-Am ericans. (R. R. vol . V I pg. 173 -2 60) . T he vic tim te sti fi ed that D ar by w as the m ai n a ct or

in the po d wh o " or ch es tra te d e ve ryth in g." (R.R. v ol . VI pg . 17 8) . T he vic tim

te sti fi ed that e ar ly

in the ir inc ar ce ratio n, the gr oup ge ne ra lly abused and later phy sically assaulted him . (R. R. vol. VI pg. 177-178). Awe ek late r, the gr oup he ld the vic tim down and s om eo ne sod om iz ed him w itha too thb ru sh. ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 183 -1 88) . T he vic tim didn’ t kn owwho p hy sic al ly did so. ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 188 ). I n anothe r inc ide nt, D ar by tol d th e vic tim

to pe rfo rm ora l s ex of Gre go ry

an d the vi ct im

co m pl ie d. (R .R. vo l. VI p g. 1 92 -1 93 ). H ow ev er , no o ne e lse w as in the c el l othe r than G re gor y and the vic tim

and Greg ory sl ap pe d the vi ct im . (R.R. v ol . VI pg . 19 2- 19 3) . A y en de G er

m any a lso te sti fi ed

at tri al a s to the abuse . ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 56- 103) . G er m any te sti fi ed that D ar by sod om iz ed

the vic tim

w iththe too thb ru sh.24

(R . R. vol . V I pg. 68- 70) . F ina lly , G er m any te sti fi ed that D ar by dir ec te d th e vic tim into o ral sex of Gregory . ( R.R . vol. VI pg. 75-77). Darb y adm it te d tha t the vi ct im

ha d b eenph y si cal ly andsex ua ll y ass au lt ed . (R.R. v ol . VII pg . 12 9) . Howev er, Darb y de ni eddo in g s o. (R .R. vo l. VII p g. 1 29 ). A lth oughvid eo c am er as r ec or de d th e pods , the re w as no d ir ec t vi de o e vid en ce of Darby ’ s invo lvem ent. ( R.R . vol IXState’ s Exhibit 4). Rather, Darby testified that he entered a cell w ith the oth ers to sm oke synthetic m arij uana with them . (R. R. vol . V II pg. 138 ). T he re , G re gor y and T ay lor

be cam e inv olv ed

in ana lte rc at ion w iththe vic tim . ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 138 -9 ). W ils on and T ay lor he ld the vic tim down whil e G re gor

y sod om iz ed

the vic tim

w ithatoo thb ru sh. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 138- 140) . F ina lly , D ar

by te sti fi ed that R obe rt s in iti al ly

a gr ee d w ithG re gor

y to pe rfo rm ora l s ex onGreg ory

to st op th e as saul ts . (R.R. v ol . VII pg . 15 0- 15 2) . H ow ev er , the vic tim

late r re fu se d and Gre gor y pun ch ed the vic tim

to fo rc e him

to perform oral sex on Gr egory . (R. R. vol. VI I pg. 150-152). T hus, the re w as e vid en ce of tw o se xua l a ssa

ult s. I n th e fi rs t a ssa

ult , the vic tim w as sod om iz ed , but

who w as phy sic al ly

r es pons ibl e w as c ontra dic te d. T he victim didn’t know who didit; Gre gory testified Darby

did it; Darby

testified Greg ory di d i t. Inth e se co ndass au lt , th e v ic ti m pe rfo rm edora l s ex on Greg ory . T he re w as som e co ntr ad ic te d e vid en ce that D ar by m er el y ins tr uc te d th e vic tim

to do so, but it seem s undi sputed th at G regory and the victim

we re in the ce ll and that Greg ory pu nc he d the vi ct im

to ph y si cal ly force th e v ic ti m to do so . Thus, the e vidence was not sufficient to establish th at D arby wa s25

res po ns ib le be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. As s uc h, ev id en ce o f th e two una dj udi cate d se xua l a ssa ult s w as ina dm iss ab le pur suant t o T ex as Co de of Cr imina l P ro ce dur e ar

tic le 37. 07 i n a ll fi ve c as es .

Ha rm fu l E rr or An erro r m

us t af fectth e subs tant ia l ri gh ts of t he accu se d t o b e h arm fu l. See T ex . R. App. P . 44. 2( b) . A"s ubst antia l r igh t" is af fe ct ed whe n th e er

ro r ha d a subs tant ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n d et erm in in g the jury's ver di ct . Ki ng v. Sta te , 953 S . W . 2d 2 66 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 7) ( ci tin g Tex . R. App . P. 44 .2(b )). A lte rn at ive ly , e rr or

is harmle ss i f the e rr or

"d id n ot i nf

lue nc e the j ur

y , or ha d but a sligh t effe ct." Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 967 S . W . 2d 4 10, 417 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 8) . T he Appellant does notbear the burden to establish su ch harm ful err or. Sc hut z v . Sta te , 63 S . W . 3d 4 42, 444 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 43 S.W .3d1, 4 (T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) . R athe r, it is the r es pons ibi lity

of the appe llate c ourt t o as se ss harm

aft er re vi ewin g the reco rd . Sc hut z v . Sta te , 63 S . W . 3d 4 42, 444 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 43 S.W .3d1, 4 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 01 ). T o de te rmine whe the r er ro ne ous adm iss ionof

suc h e vid en ce a ff

ec te d a de fe ndant' s su

bst antia l r igh ts at the pun ishm ent ph as e the appe llate c ourt sh oul d ask whether the def

endant received a longer sentence a s a result of the er ror. Se e D av is v . Sta te , 31 5 S .W .3d90 8, 9 18 -1 9 (Te x. Ap p.— Hou st on [14 th Dis t.] 2010 ) re v'

d on oth er

gro unds , 349 S . W . 3d 5 17 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 201 1) ; Iveyv. Sta te , 25 0 S .W .3d12 1, 1 26 (Tex . App .—Au st in20 07 ), aff'd , 277 S . W . 3d 4 326

(T ex . Cr im . App. 200 9) ). T he appe llate c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r ev er ythi ng i n th e record, includin g other evidence adm itted in th e case , the nature of the evidence supp ortin g th e j ur

y ' s de te rminatio n, the c hara ct er of the a lle ge d e rr or , and h owit m ig htbe co ns id eredinco nn ect io n wi th othe r ev id en ce i n the cas e. M oti lla v. Sta te , 78 S. W .3d 352, 355 (Tex. Crim . App. 2002). H er e, the e vid en ce of

the tw o un ad

j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s r es ult ed

in long er sentences f

or Darby . T he offenses w ere com m itted in jail by

inm ates. (R. R. vo l. VI p g. 1 72 -1 99 ). The o ffen se s wer e co m m it te d a ga in sta m in or . Id . T he of fen se s wer e co m

m it te d b y m in or s. Id . T he of

fe nse s w er e co m

m itt ed by agr oup of ph y si cal ly larg e juv en il es ag ai ns t a s in gl e p hysic al ly sm al l ju ve ni le . Id . The two of fe nse s w er e se xua l i n natur e, c om m itt ed by agr oup of

m al e j uve nil es a ga ins t a singl e m ale j uvenile. Id . The specif ic nature of the tw o sexual assaults wa s sh oc ki ng ly dem ean in g t o the vi ct im inna tu re. Id . T hese fac tors alone have a str ong te nde nc y

to gr ab the j ur

y ’ s atte nti on and s ugge st a pun ishm ent of

D ar by on the basis of thos e offe nses as opp osed to th e offe nses for which D arby wa s actua ll y be in g p un is he d. Id . As su ch , th e err on eo us adm is si on of t he two un ad jud ic at edsex ua l as saul ts was h arm fu l t o Darby.27

Iss ue 2: W as the pr obativ e va lue of tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s by Darby subst antially

outweighed by

the danger of unfair pre

j udice? The probative value of the tw o unadjudicated sexual assaults b y Darby wa s redundant and th eref

ore, low. H owever , the unfair prej udicial danger was ex tr em el y hig h. A s su ch , e vid en ce of the tw o un ad

j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s by D ar by w er e ina dm iss ab le pur suant t o T ex as Ru le of E vid en ce 403 . P re se rv at ion of

Er ro r T o pr es er ve ac om pla int f or appe llate r ev ie w , aparty m ust ge ne ra lly have pr es ente d to the tr ia l c ourt a ti m el y r eque st, obj ec tio n, or

m oti on s tatin g th e spe ci fi c gr ound s f

or the de sir ed

r uli ng, if the y are not appare nt f

ro m the c ont ex t of th e reque st , ob

jecti on , or m ot io n. See T ex . R. App. P . 33. 1( a) ; M osleyv . Sta te , 983 S.W .2d24 9, 2 65 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 98 ) (o p. o n re h'g ), cert. denied , 526 U. S. 1070 , 119 S . Ct . 146 6, 143 L . E d. 2d 5 50 ( 1999 ). F urthe r, the tr ia l c ourt m ust have ru le d onthe r eque st, obj ec tio n, or m oti on, e ith er

e xpr es sly

or im pli ci tly , or

the com plainin g party

m ust have ob

j ected to the trial court' s refusal to rule. Te x. R. App. P . 33. 1( a) (2 ); M

en de z v . Sta te , 138 S. W .3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim . App. 2004). A ft er j ur y se le ct ion , but

pr ior to the pun ishm ent tri al , the tr ia l c ourt he ld a he ar ing c onc er

nin g th e adm iss ibi lity

of tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s inv olv ing D ar

by . ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 6- 33) . T he re , D ar by obj ec te d to the a dm iss ion of e vid en ce of

the tw o un ad

j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s onse ve ra l ba sis , inc lud ing Te xas Rule of E vidence 403. (R. R. vol. VI pg. 8, 6-33). T he issue was discussed28

and debated at great length. ( R.R . vol. VI pg. 6-33). Ultim ately , the tr ial court ru le d th at the tw o un ad

j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s w er e adm iss ibl e. ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 33 ). L at er

in the tr ia l the tr ia l c ourt r ea ff irm ed it ’ s r uli ng. ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 155 - 156) . A ddi tio na lly , D ar

by r eque ste d ar

unni ng o bj ec tio n to any

e vid en ce of

the tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s, whic h w as gr ante d by the tr ia l c ourt. ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 156 ). F or

goo d m ea sur e, at the e nd o f the S tate ’ s c as e in c hie f, D ar by re que ste d adir ec te d ve rd ic t arg uin g th at the j ur y sho uld not have he ar d or co nsi de re d th e tw o un ad

j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s, a lth oughhe did

not spe ci fi ca lly re-ur ge the 403 ob

j ection basis. (R. R. vol. VI I pg. 44-46). T hat m otion wa s denied by the tr ia l c ourt. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 44- 46) . T his m oti on w as r en ew ed by D ar by after the defense re sted. ( R.R . vol. VI I pg. 196). T herefor e, this iss ue wa s pr es erv edforap pe ll at e rev ie w. Stand ard of R eview The dete rm inationof adm issib ility is within the sou nd dis cretion of the trial co urt, Ja ck

son v. Sta te , 575 S . W . 2d 5 67, 570 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 1979 ), and w ill not be rever sed on appeal unl ess a clear abuse of discretion is shown." W erner v. Sta te , 711 S . W . 2d 6 39, 643 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 198 6) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 698 S . W . 2d 15 4, 1 60 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 85 ), cert. denied , 10 7 S .Ct. 2 39 (19 86 ). An ap pe llate c ourt sh oul d no t f ind suc h an a buse of dis cr et ionif

the tr ia l c ourt' s r

uli ng wa s within the "zone of rea sonable dis agreem ent." Santel lan v . Sta te , 939 S . W . 2d29

15 5, 1 69 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 97 ). La w an d A pp lic at ion The probative value of the tw o unadjudicated sexual assaults b y Darby wa s redundant and th eref

ore, low. H owever , the unfair prej udicial danger was ex tr em el y hig h. A s su ch , e vid en ce of the tw o un ad

j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s inv olv ing D ar

by w er e ina dm iss ab le pur suant t o T ex as Ru le of E vid en ce 403 . Relevant evidence is generally adm issib le, but it is properly excluded und er Te xas Rule of E vidence 403 when "its prob ative value is subs tantially outweighed by the danger of unfair pre

j udice." R eesev . Sta te , 3 3 S . W. 3 d2 3 8 ( T e x . C r i m. App. 200 0) ; T ex . R. E vid . 403 . "Unf ai r pr ej udi ce " m eans an un due te nde nc y to su gg es t a d eci si on onanim pr op er b as is . Se e R oge rs v . Sta te , 991 S . W . 2d 2 63, 266 (T ex . Cr im . App. 199 9) ; F lores v . Sta te , 125 S . W . 3d 7 44, 746 ( T ex . App. —H oust on [ 1 D ist . ] 200 3, no p et . ). A lm ost a ll ev ide nc e of

fe re d by the st pr ose cutio n w ill be pr ej udi ci al to the de fe ndant. T hus, onl y e vid en ce whic h is un fai rly preju di ci al sh ou ldbe ex cl ud ed . Ca bal le ro v . Sta te , 919 S . W . 2d 9 19, 922 (T ex . App. —H oust on [ 14th D ist . ] 199 6, pe t. r ef ' d) ; F le tc he r v . Sta te , 852 S . W . 2d 271, 277 ( T ex . App. —D al la s 19 93, pe t. r ef ' d) . T he te rm

r ef er s to "an un due te nde nc y to sugg es t de ci sio n onan im pr ope r ba sis , c om

m onl y , tho ugh not ne ces sa ril y , an e m ot io na l o ne . To rres v . Sta te , 794 S . W . 2d 5 96, 600 ( T ex . App .—Au st in19 90 , no pe t.). T ex as Ru le of

E vid en ce 403 "f

av or s a dm iss ibi lit

y of r el ev ant e vid en ce , and30

th e p res um

pt io n i s tha t re le va ntev id en ce wi ll be m or e p ro ba ti ve th anpre jud ic ia l." M ont gom er y v. Sta te , 810 S. W .2d 372, 389 (Tex. Crim . App. 1991). In other words, this rule carr ies with it a pre sum ption that relevant evidence w ill be m ore pr ob at iv e th anpre

jud ic ia l. M

cF arland v. Sta te , 8 4 5 S . W. 2 d8 2 4 , 8 3 7 ( T e x . C r i m. App . 19 92 ), ov erruled

in part on o the r ground

s by B ing ham v . Sta te , 915 S . W . 2d 9 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 4) ( ci tin g G re en v . Sta te , 840 S . W . 2d 3 94 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 1992 )) . T he f

oll ow ing f

ac tor s are take n into c onsi de ratio n whe n un de rt ak ing a ru le 403 ana ly sis : ( 1) the inh er ent pr obativ e fo rc e of the pr of fe re d e vid en ce ; ( 2) the pr opon ent' s ne ed

f or that e vid en ce ; ( 3) any

te nde nc y of the e vid en ce to sugg es t de ci sio n onan im

pr ope r ba sis ; ( 4) any

te nde nc y of the e vid en ce to co nf

use or distract the j ury

from the m ain issues; (5) any

tendency of the evidence to be given undu e w eight bya j ury

that has not been equi pped to evaluate the probativ e forc e of the e vid en ce ; and ( 6) the li ke lih ood that pr es entatio n of the e vid en ce w ill co nsum e anino rd inate am ount of ti m e or m er el y r ep eat e vid en ce a lr ea dy

a dm itt ed . G igl iob ian co v . Sta te , 210 S. W .3d 637, 641-42 (Tex. Crim . App. 2006). E ach fa ct or is ex amine d intur

n. (1) P robative Forc e The f irst factor, the inherent probative force of the proff ered e vidence, w ei ghs in f

av or of a dm iss ion . Aj ur

y m ay c onsi de r una dj udi cate d of fe nse s in as se ss in g p un is hm en t. Se e Sm ith v . Sta te , 899 S . W . 2d 3 1 ( T ex . App. ) Aust in 1995 , pe t. r ef

’ d) . H ow ev er , in or de r to d o so , the S tate m ust e sta bli sh that the31

of fen se s wer e co m

m it te d b y Darb y be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. See T ex . Co de Crim . P ro. Ann. Art. 37.07 §3(a)(1) (W est Supp. 2014). A s discuss ed in greater de ta il ab ove , the S tate did not do s o. A cc or din gly , thi s f ac tor w ei ghs ag ai nst adm is si on . (2) State ’s N eed for Eviden ce T he se co nd f

ac tor , the pr opon ent' s ne ed f or the e vid en ce , w ei ghs ag ai nst adm issio n because the inherent probative force of the proffer ed evidence w as sl ig ht . A j ury

m ay co ns id er u na dju di cat edoff en se s i n a ss es si ng pu ni sh m en t. See Sm ith v . Sta te , 899 S . W . 2d 3 1 ( T ex . App. ) Aust in 1 995, pe t. r ef ’ d) . H ow ev er , the j ur y w as a lr ea dy

c onsi de ri ng the f

ac t that D ar

by ha d c om m itt ed f our f el ony of fen se s an d o ne st at e jail fel on y , bec au se all th es e o ffen se s wer e tr ie d t og ethe r. Th er ef o re , th e S t at e h adl i tt l e n ee dt o ad dan o th ero ff en s e t o th e ju ry’s co ns id erat io n. Acco rd in gl y , th is fact orweig hs ag ai ns t ad mis si on . (3 ) Te nd en cyt o S ug ge stD ec isi on on Im pr op erBa sis The third fa ctor, any

tendency of the evidence to suggest d ecision on an im pr ope r ba sis , w ei ghs ag ai nst a dm iss ion . T he tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s w er e part ic ularl y

of fe nsi ve f or num er ous re as ons. T he of fe nse s w er e co m

m itt ed in j ai l by inm at es . ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 172 -1 99) . T he of fe nse s w er e co m

m itt ed a ga ins t a juv en il e v ic ti m . Id . The o ffen se s wer e co m m it te d b y juv en il es . Id . The off

enses w er e co m m itt ed by agr oup of

phy sic al ly

larg e j uve nil es a ga ins t a

sin gle32

ph y si cal ly sm al l ju ve ni le . Id . T he two offe nses wer e sexual in nature, c omm itted by a group of m ale j uveniles agains t a single m ale j uvenile. Id . T he spe ci fi c de ta ils of the tw o se xua l a ssa

ult s w as sho ck ing ly

de m eanin g to the vic tim in na tu re. Id . T he se f

ac tor s a lon e have astr ong te nde nc y to gr ab the j ur

y ’ s atte nti on an d su gge st a

pun ishm ent of

D ar by on the ba sis of

tho se of fe nse s, a s op pose d to th e o ffen se s fo r whi chDarb y was a ctua ll y

be in g p un is he d. Id . Additionally , the off

enses wer e com

m itted by a group of several A frican Am eri canjuv en il e in m at es ag ai ns t a s in gl e whi te juv en il e in m at e. Id . Ac cordingly , these off

enses also have the potent ial to insig ht an im proper rac ial ba si s fo r Darb y ’s pu ni sh m en t. T hus, the se f

ac tor s have astr ong te nde nc y to ind uc e the j ur

y to de ci de Darby ’ s puni shm ent based upo n the extraneous offenses, r ather than the offenses fo r whic h D ar

by w as be ing pun ish ed . A ddi tio na lly , the of fe nse s have pot entia l t o ins igh t an im

pr ope r ra ci al ba sis f

or D ar by ’ s punis hm ent. A cc or din gly , thi s f ac tor weig hs ag ai ns t ad m is si on . (4) Tend ency t o Confu se or D istract T he f ourth f ac tor , the te nde nc y

of the e vid en ce to co nf

use or dis tr ac t the j ury from the m ain issues, we ighs in favor of e xclusio n. F or the sam e re asons as ad dr es se d di re ct ly

above und er

the thi rd f ac tor , thi s f

ac tor w ei ghs ag ai nst adm iss ion .33

(5) Tend ency t o Be Given U ndue Weight Th e f i f thf a c t o r , th e t e n d e n c y o f

th e e v i d e n c e t o b e g i v e nun du e we i g h tb y a j ury that has not been equi pped to evaluate the probativ e forc e of the evidence, w ei ghs in f

av or of e xc lus ion . F or

the sam e re as ons as a ddr es se d di re ct ly above unde r the thi rd

f ac tor , thi s f

ac tor w ei ghs ag ai nst

a dm iss ion . ( 6 ) Co n s u me T i me T he six th f

ac tor , the li ke lih ood that pr es entatio n of the e vid en ce w ill co nsum e anino rd inate am ount of ti m e or m er el y r ep eat e vid en ce a lr ea dy

a dm itt ed , w ei ghs in f

av or of e xc lus ion . T he S tate c al le d atot al of e igh t w itn es se s duri ng the puni shm ent tri al c as e in c hie f. T he sol e pur pose of Ay en de G er

m any ’ s te sti m ony w as the tw o un ad

j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s. ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 56- 103) . T he sol e purpos e of L arry

Va den’ s testim ony

wa s video of the two unadjudicated sexual as sault s. ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 115 -1 22) . T he sol e pur pose of Je rl P al m or e’ s te sti m ony wa s video of the two unadjudicated sexual assaults. (R. R. vol. VI pg. 1223-171 ). The sole purpose of the victim ’ s testim ony wa s the two unadjudicated sexual as sault s. ( R. R. vol . V I pg. 172 -2 60) . T hus, ha lf of the S tate ’ s w itn es se s ( 4 of 8) testified onlyas to the two unadjudicated sexual assaults. T hat testim ony included ap pr oxi m at el y

205 pa ge s of

the tot al of

appr oxi m at el y

297 pa ge s of

S tate w itn es s te st im on y , or 6 9 p erce ntof t he Sta te ’s tes ti m on y du rin g the cas e in ch ie f. A cc or din gly , thi s f

ac tor w ei ghs ag ai nst

a dm iss ion .34

Be ca use f ive of the sixf ac tor s w ei gh a ga ins t a dm iss ionand o nly one w ei ghs in f av or of a dm iss ion , the pr obativ e va lue of the tw o un ad

j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s w as sub stanti al ly

outw ei ghe d by

the dange r of

unf ai r pr ej udi ce to D ar

by in al l f ive ca se s. Ha rm fu l E rr or An erro r m

us t af fectth e subs tant ia l ri gh ts of t he accu se d t o b e h arm fu l. See T ex . R. App. P . 44. 2( b) . A"s ubst antia l r igh t" is af fe ct ed whe n th e er

ro r ha d a subs tant ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n d et erm in in g the jury's ver di ct . Ki ng v. Sta te , 95 3 S .W .2d26 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 97 ) (ci ti ng Tex. R. Ap p. P. 4 4.2 (b )). A lte rn at ive ly , e rr or

is harmle ss i f the e rr or

"d id n ot i nf

lue nc e the j ur

y , or ha d but a sligh t effe ct." Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 967 S . W . 2d 4 10, 417 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 8) . T he Appellant does notbear the burden to establish su ch harm ful err or. Sc hut z v . Sta te , 63 S . W . 3d 4 42, 444 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 43 S.W .3d1, 4 (T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) . R athe r, it is the r es pons ibi lity

of the appe llate c ourt t o as se ss harm

aft er re vi ewin g the reco rd . Sc hut z v . Sta te , 63 S . W . 3d 4 42, 444 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 43 S.W .3d1, 4 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 01 ). He re, evidence of the tw o extraneous unad j udicated sexual assaults wa s un fai rly preju di ci al to Darb y inth is cas e as di sc us se d i n d et ai l ab ov e. Ac cordingly , the e rror in admitting evidence of the tw o extraneous unad j udicated se xu al ass au lt s was harm fu l erro r.35

Iss ue 3: W as e vid en ce of an a lle ge d di sc uss ionof

e sc ap e by

D ar by pr ope rl y adm itted as im

peachm ent evidence? T he tr ia l c ourt a llo w ed

the S tate to adm it ev ide nc e of an a lle ge d di sc uss ion of e sc ap e by

D ar by , e ve n th oughthe e vid en ce ha d no t be endis cl ose d by the S tate to Dar by prior to trial. This evidence should h ave been excluded by the trial court be ca use it w as not a dm iss ibl e to r eb ut D ar

by ' s te sti m ony

of his r em or se a s to the of fen se s. P re se rv at ion of Er ro r T o pr es er ve ac om pla int f or appe llate r ev ie w , aparty m ust ge ne ra lly have pr es ente d to the tr ia l c ourt a ti m el y r eque st, obj ec tio n, or

m oti on s tatin g th e spe ci fi c gr ound s f

or the de sir ed

r uli ng, if the y are not appare nt f

ro m the c ont ex t of th e reque st , ob

jecti on , or m ot io n. See T ex . R. App. P . 33. 1( a) ; M osleyv . Sta te , 983 S.W .2d24 9, 2 65 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 98 ) (o p. o n re h'g ), cert. denied , 526 U. S. 1070 , 119 S . Ct . 146 6, 143 L . E d. 2d 5 50 ( 1999 ). F urthe r, the tr ia l c ourt m ust have ru le d onthe r eque st, obj ec tio n, or m oti on, e ith er

e xpr es sly

or im pli ci tly , or

the com plainin g party

m ust have ob

j ected to the trial court' s refusal to rule. Te x. R. App. P . 33. 1( a) (2 ); M

en de z v . Sta te , 138 S. W .3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim . App. 2004). He re, Darby

objec ted to the State presenting evidence of a re corded co nv ers at io n b etweenDarb y an d h is fathe r reg ard in g e sc ap e. (R.R. VII p g 1 98 ). The issue w as considered at length bythe trial court. (R. R. VI I pg 198-21 4). Ult im at el y , th e tr ia l co urt ru le d the ev id en ce was adm is si bl e as reb ut ta l ev id en ce.36

(R.R. VII p g 2 02 ). Ther efo re, thi s i ss ue was p res erv edforap pe ll at e rev ie w. Stand ard of R eview The dete rm inationof adm issib ility is within the sou nd dis cretion of the trial co urt, Ja ck

son v. Sta te , 575 S . W . 2d 5 67, 570 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 1979 ), and w ill not be rever sed on appeal unl ess a clear abuse of discretion is shown." W erner v. Sta te , 711 S . W . 2d 6 39, 643 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 198 6) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 698 S . W . 2d 15 4, 1 60 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 85 ), cert. denied , 10 7 S .Ct. 2 39 (19 86 ). An ap pe llate c ourt sh oul d no t f ind suc h an a buse of dis cr et ionif

the tr ia l c ourt' s r

uli ng wa s within the "zone of rea sonable dis agreem ent." Santel lan v . Sta te , 939 S . W . 2d 155, 169 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 7) . Mo re spe ci fi ca lly , "whe the r the intro duc tio n of ane xtr an eo us o ff

en se int o e vid en ce is re ve rs ibl e er ro r is an a d ho c de te rminatio n based on th e m erits of ea ch case. " R uiz v . Sta te , 5 7 9 S . W. 2 d2 0 6 , 2 0 9 ( T e x . C r i m. App. 1979 ). La w an d A pp lic at ion T he tr ia l c ourt a llo w ed

the S tate to adm it ev ide nc e of an a lle ge d di sc uss ion of e sc ap e by

D ar by , e ve n th oughthe e vid en ce ha d no t be endis cl ose d by the S tate to Dar by prior to trial. This evidence should h ave been excluded by the trial court be ca use it w as not a dm iss ibl e to r eb ut D ar

by ' s te sti m ony

of his r em or se a s to the of fen se s. A ft er the de fe nse r es te d inthe pun ishm ent ph as e of the tr ia l, the S tate37

attem pted to adm it evidence of an alleged discussio n of escape by Darby . (R. R. vol. VI I pg. 198-200). T he State c onfessed that the evidence had no t been dis cl ose d to D ar

by pr ior to tr ia l. ( R. R. vol . V II pg 1 98- 214) . H ow ev er , the S tate ar gue d th at

the e vid en ce w as a dm iss ibl e to r eb ut D ar by ’ s te sti m ony

of his r em or se as to th e o ffen se s. (R .R. vo l. VII p g 1 98 -2 14 ). T he T ex as Co de of

Cr imina l P ro ce dur e re qui re s th e St at e to g ive not ic e of pr ior ba d a ct s th at

the S tate int en ds t o us e ag ai nst aD ef en dant i n th e puni shm ent pha se of atr ia l. S pe ci fi ca lly

art ic le 37. 07 p ro vid es in re le vant p ar t: Ve rdictm ust Be Gene ral; Sep arate Hearin g on Pr oper Pu nishm ent (g) On tim ely

request of the defe ndant, notice of intent to in troduce evidence under this article shall be given in th e sam e m anner re qui re d by

Ru le 404 (b ), T ex as Ru le s of E vid en ce . I f the attorney repre senting the state intends to introduce an extraneous crim e or bad act that has not resultedin a final convictio n in a court of rec ord or a probated or suspended sentence, notice of that intent is rea sonable on ly if the notice includes th e date on which and the county in which the alleged cr im e or ba d a ct oc curr ed and the nam e of

the a lle ge d vi ct im

of the crim e or bad act. The requirem ent under this subsection th at the atto rn ey

r ep re se nti ng the state giv e not ic e ap pli es onl y if the defendant m akes a tim ely request to the attorney represe nting the state for the notice. Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro . Ann . art . 37 .07 , § 3 (g ) (WestSupp . 20 14 ). Darby m ade such a tim ely

request for e xtraneous offenses the State intended to u se . ( C. R. [ 6- 15- 42- CR ] pg. 18; [6 -1 5- 43- CR ] pg. 20) ;[ 6- 15- 44- CR ] pg. 19; C. R. [ 6- 15- 46- CR ] pg. 23; [ 6- 15- 45- CR ] pg. 19) . T hus, a cc or din g to T ex as Co de of Cr imina l P ro ce dur e ar

tic le 37. 07 s ec tio n 3( g) , the S tate w as r equir ed to have38

giv ennot ic e of

the ba d a ct . H ow ev er , the S tate did not giv e any pr ior not ic e of the al le ge d di sc uss ionof

e sc ap e. ( R. R. V II pg 1 98- 214) . T he S tate c ont en ds that the evidence wa s rebuttal evidence and that as such, it w as not sub j ect to this statut ory di sc lo su re re qu ire m en t. (R.R . VII pg . 19 8- 21 4) . Rebuttal evidence is evidence which is offe red to ref ute a defe nsive theory orm it ig at io n e vi de nc e. Se e e. g. J aube rt v . Sta te , 7 4 S . W. 3 d1 , 4 - 5 ( T e x . C r i m. App .), cert. denied , 537 U . S. 100 5 ( 2002 ). I n th e puni shm ent ph as e, whe n th e de fe ndant p re se nts e vid en ce in m iti gatio n, the S tate m ay of fe r re butta l e vid en ce of th atm it ig at io n e vi de nc e. Se e G ips on v . Sta te , 619 S . W . 2d 1 69 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 1981 ). Such evidence can includ e extraneous offenses which are not disclosed pr io r to tri al . See e. g. Id . I n G ips on , the de fe ndant arg ue d inthe pun ishm ent ph as e th athe ha d b eenfor cedto co m m ita se xu al ass au lt . Id . The S tate re butted th is tes ti m on y

with e vi de nc e o f a p rio r se xu al ass au lt . Id . T he T ex as Co urt of Cr imina l Appe al s c onc lud ed that the de fe ndant c hose to ra ise the c ont es te d is sue an d the refo re o pe ne d the do orto th e St at e’s reb ut ta l ev id en ce. Id . He re, Darby

presented evidence that he w as rem orseful for what he had done . ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 80- 164) . E vid en ce of r em or se c anbe c onsi de re d to be m it ig at io n e vi de nc e. Se e e.g . ex Par te W il li ams , A P - 7 6 , 4 5 5 , f

n . 7 6 ( T e x . C r i m. App. Jun e 13, 201 2) (m em . op. ); but se e H ernand ez -M unoz v . Sta te , N o. 14- 11- 0073 0- CR , pg. 10 ( T ex . App. ) H oust on [ 14th D ist . ] D ec . 28, 201 2, no pe t.)( pl ea o f gu il ty its el f le av es im pr es si on of r em or se fu ln es s) (m em . op .). As su ch , th e St at e co ul d o fferev id en ce t o re bu t thi s d efen se m it ig at io n e vi de nc e. See39

G ips on v . Sta te , 61 9 S .W .2d16 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 81 ). H ow ev er , e vid en ce of

an a lle ge d di sc uss ionof

e sc ap e ev ide nc e doe s no t re but e vid en ce of

r em or se fu lne ss. R em or se is de fi ne d a s agr ow ing dis tr es s ari si ng fro m

a se ns e o f gu il t fo r pa stwron gs . H all v . Sta te , 13 S . W . 3d 1 15 ( T ex . App. ) Fo rt. Worth 2 00 0) , pet. dism' d, im providen tly grant ed , 46 S . W . 3d 2 64 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) (c iti ng WEBSTE R ' S T HI RD N E W I NT ' L D I CT I ONARY 19 21 (19 81 )). Evidence of D arby ’ s alleged discuss ion of escape is not evidence that Darby wa s n o td i s tre s s edas a r es u l to f g u i l tfo r th e o ff en s es . Ac co rd i n g l y, th e S t at e’s ev ide nc e of

D ar by ’ s a lle ge d di sc uss ionof e sc ap e doe s no t r eb ut D ar by ’ s te sti m ony of r em or se . F or

thi s r ea son, the e vid en ce of the a lle ge d di sc uss ionof e sc ap e shou ld nothave been adm itted by the trial court in all five c ases as re buttal ev id en ce. Ha rm fu l E rr or An erro r m

us t af fectth e subs tant ia l ri gh ts of t he accu se d t o b e h arm fu l. See T ex . R. App. P . 44. 2( b) . A"s ubst antia l r igh t" is af fe ct ed whe n th e er

ro r ha d a subs tant ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n d et erm in in g the jury's ver di ct . Ki ng v. Sta te , 953 S . W . 2d 2 66 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 7) ( ci tin g Tex . R. App . P. 44 .2(b )). A lte rn at ive ly , e rr or

is harmle ss i f the e rr or

"d id n ot i nf

lue nc e the j ur

y , or ha d but a sligh t effe ct." Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 967 S . W . 2d 4 10, 417 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 8) . T he Appellant does notbear the burden to establish su ch harm ful err or. Sc hut z v . Sta te , 63 S . W . 3d 4 42, 444 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 43 S.W .3d1, 440

(T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) . R athe r, it is the r es pons ibi lity

of the appe llate c ourt t o as se ss harm

aft er re vi ewin g the reco rd . Sc hut z v . Sta te , 63 S . W . 3d 4 42, 444 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 43 S.W .3d1, 4 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 01 ). Evidence of the discussion o f esca pe by Darby wa s harm ful. T he j ury al read y he ardev id en ce tha t Dar

by hadco m

m it te d the co re fi ve off

en se s atis su e. A ddi tio na lly , the j ur

y he ar d e vid en ce a s to tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s by Darb y . Thu s, the jury ha d h eardev id en ce o f a t ot al of s ev enoff en se s b y Darb y . Evidence of this alleged discussio n of escape a llowed the j ury to consid er a

total of e igh t of fe nse s whe n se tti ng the pun ishm ent onthe und er ly ing f ive of fe nse s. A ddi tio na lly , e vid en ce of the dis cu ssi on o f es ca

pe e sta bli she d inthe m ind s of

the j ur or s th e ide a that D ar

by whol ly r ef use d to a cc ep t punis hm ent f or the f ive of fe nse s. F or

the se r ea sons the a dm iss ionof e vid en ce of

the dis cu ssi on o f es ca

pe by Darby was harm fu l.41

Iss ue 4: W as apr ope r fo undatio n la id f or the a dm iss ionof

ac onve rs at ion betwee n Dar

by and his father at the j ail regar ding escape? T he S tate did

not e sta bli sh a c om ple te f ound at ionf

or the a dm iss ionof

the re co rd ed te le phon e co nve rs at ionbe tw ee n D ar by and h is f athe r re gard ing e sc ap e be ca use the S tate did

not e sta bli sh that the c al l i nvol ve d D ar by ’ s ph one num

be r, or som e other fa ct linkin g Dar by to the telephon e re cording. A ccordingly , the tr ial co urt s ho ul d n otha ve adm it te d the reco rd in g. P re se rv at ion of

Er ro r T o pr es er ve ac om pla int f or appe llate r ev ie w , aparty m ust ge ne ra lly have pr es ente d to the tr ia l c ourt a ti m el y r eque st, obj ec tio n, or

m oti on s tatin g th e spe ci fi c gr ound s f

or the de sir ed

r uli ng, if the y are not appare nt f

ro m the c ont ex t of th e reque st , ob

jecti on , or m ot io n. See T ex . R. App. P . 33. 1( a) ; M osleyv . Sta te , 983 S.W .2d24 9, 2 65 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 98 ) (o p. o n re h'g ), cert. denied , 526 U. S. 1070 , 119 S . Ct . 146 6, 143 L . E d. 2d 5 50 ( 1999 ). F urthe r, the tr ia l c ourt m ust have ru le d onthe r eque st, obj ec tio n, or m oti on, e ith er

e xpr es sly

or im pli ci tly , or

the com plainin g party

m ust have ob

j ected to the trial court' s refusal to rule. Te x. R. App. P . 33. 1( a) (2 ); M

en de z v . Sta te , 138 S. W .3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim . App. 2004). D ar by obj ec te d to the a dm iss ionof the te le phon e re co rd ing on the ba sis of the f ai lur e of the S tate to lay

the pr ope r fo undatio n. ( R. R. vol . V II I pg. 23) . T his m oti on w as ove rr

ule d by the tr ia l c ourt. ( R. R. vol . V II I pg. 23) . T he re fo re , thi s is su e was pre se rv edforap pe ll at e rev ie w.42 Stand ard of R eview The dete rm inationof adm issib ility is within the sou nd dis cretion of the trial co urt, Ja ck

son v. Sta te , 575 S . W . 2d 5 67, 570 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 1979 ), and w ill not be rever sed on appeal unl ess a clear abuse of discretion is shown." W erner v. Sta te , 711 S . W . 2d 6 39, 643 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 198 6) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 698 S . W . 2d 15 4, 1 60 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 85 ), cert. denied , 107 S . Ct . 239 ( 1986 ). An a ppe llate court shou ld notfind such an abuse of discretion if the trial court's ruling was within the "zone of rea sonable dis agreem ent." Santel lan v . Sta te , 939 S . W . 2d 1 55, 16 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 97 ).

La w an d A pp lic at ion T he S tate did

not e sta bli sh a c om ple te f ound at ionf

or the a dm iss ionof

the re co rd ed te le phon e co nve rs at ionbe tw ee n D ar by and h is f athe r re gard ing e sc ap e because the State did no t establish th at the call involved Darby ’ s phon e num ber, or som e other fa ct linkin g Dar by to the telephon e re cording. A ccordingly , the tr ial co urt s ho ul d n otha ve adm it te d the reco rd in g. T ex as Ru le of

E vid en ce 901 pr ovi de s inr el ev ant part : Au then ticating or Ide ntifying Evide nce (a ) InG en er al . T o satis fy the r equir em ent of

auth entic at ing or identify ing an item

of evidence, the propon ent m ust produce ev ide nc e suf

fi ci ent t o su

ppor t a f ind ing that the it em

is what the pr opon ent c la im s it

is. (b ) E xam

ple s. T he f

oll ow ing are e xam

ple s on ly — n ot a c om ple te43 lis t — of e vid en ce that satis fi es the r equir em ent: (1) Te stim ony

of a W itness with Knowledge. Te stim ony that an item is what it is claim ed to be.

. . . (5 ) O pin ionAbout

aV oic e. An op ini on i de nti fy ing a pe rs on’ s vo ic e — whe the r he ar d f ir sth an d or

thr ough m ec hanic al or

e le ctro nic tr an sm iss ionor r ec or din g — based on hearing the vo ice at any tim e under circum stances that connect it with the alleged speaker. (6) Evidence Abouta T elephone Conv ersation. F or a te le phon e co nve rs at ion , e vid en ce that a c al l w as m ad e to the num be r as sig ne d at the ti m e to: (A ) a part ic ular pe rs on, if c ir cum stanc es , inc lud ing se lf -i de nti fi catio n, sho wthat the pe rs on answ er ing w as the one c al le d; o r (B ) a part ic ular busi ne ss, if the c al l w as m ad e to a busi ne ss and the c al l r el at ed to busi ne ss reasonably

transacted over the tele phon e. T ex . R. E vid . 901 ; se e als o A ngleton v . Sta te , 971 S . W . 2d 6 5 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 19 98 ). T o auth entic at e the r ec or de d te le phon e co nve rs at ion , the S tate of fe re d th e t es t i m o n y o f J ef

f N ea l , th e C h i ef

De p u ty wi thth e B o wi e C o un ty Sh er i ff ’s De partm ent. ( R.R . vol. VI I pg. 227-240). N eal testified that as part of his du ties he c ontro lle d th e Bo w ie Co unty Ja il. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 228 ). H e expla ine d th e existence of a sy stem

to record j ail calls (internal and external) which is prov ided by an outsid e contractor c alled Corre ct Solutions . (R. R. vol. VI I pg. 228). N eal explained that an inm ate is identified by the inm ate enter ing a unique num ber as sig ne d to the inm at e. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 229 , 231) . H e expla ine d th at ar ec or din g ha d be enm ad e of

ape rs ona l vi sit at ionbe tw ee n D ar by and h is f athe r the nig ht44

be fo re , to whic h N ea l ha d li ste ne d. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 229 ). N ea l sum m ar ily ide nti fi ed the voi ce of

D ar by and h is f athe r on the r ec or din g. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 229). T he S tate did

not auth entic at e the te le phon e re co rd ing und er T ex as Ru le of Evidence 901(b)(1). Jeff Ne al is not a witness with personal knowledge. Jef f N ea l i s th e Ch ie f D ep uty w iththe Bo w ie Co unty

S he ri ff ’ s D ep ar tm ent. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 227 -2 39) . N ea l t es tif ie d th at a s part of his dut ie s he c ontro lle d th e Bo w ie Co unty Ja il. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 228 ). H e expla ine d th e ex ist en ce of asy ste m to record j ail calls (internal and external) which is prov ided by an outsid e contractor, Co rr ec t S olutio ns. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 228 ). T hus, Je ff N ea l di d no t t es tif

y that he had personal kno wledge of howthe sy stem worked or that it, in fact, worked, since itwas p ro vi de d b y

Co rrec t So lu ti on s. (R .R. vo l. VII p g. 2 27 -2 39 ). T he S tate did

not auth entic at e the te le phon e re co rd ing und er T ex as Ru le of Evidence 901(b)(6). T exas Rule of E vidence 901(B)(6) genera lly requires evidence that the phon e num ber w as assigned to the person it is being attributed to. H ere, there w as no such evid ence. (R. R. vol. VI I pg. 227-240). Jef f N eal te sti fi ed that an inm at e is i de nti fi ed by the inm at e him se lf

e nte ri ng a

uni que num be r as sig ne d to the inm at e. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 229 , 231) . R eg ar dle ss, N ea l di d not testify

that this ph one call wa s attached to Darby through this sy stem . ( R.R . vol. VI I pg. 227-240). N or did Neal te stify as to any sy stem to verify or assure th atan y su chnu m

be r inpu t b y

th e in m at e was co rrec t. (R .R. vo l. VII p g. 2 27 -2 40 ). T hus, the te sti m ony

of N ea l w as ins uf

fi ci ent t o li nk D ar

by to the te le phon e45

reco rd in g. T he S tate did

not auth entic at e the te le phon e re co rd ing und er T ex as Ru le of E vid en ce 901 (b )( 5) . Je ff N ea l di d sum

m ar ily state that the r ec or din g w as of D ar by an d hi s f athe r. ( R. R. vol . V II pg. 229 ). H ow ev er , N ea l di d no t t es tif y of his familiarity

with either’ s voice. (R .R. vol. V II pg. 227-240 ). E ven if Jeff Ne al had testified of his fam iliarity with D arby

and his father’ s voice, there is no oth er as sur an ce that the r ec or din g w as a cc ur at e, une dit ed and c om ple te . Je ff

N ea l di d te st ify tha t the reco rd in g h adno t b een"al te redor t am pe redwith i n any way ." (R. R. vol. VI I pg. 227-240). H owever , this m ust be dis counted in light o f Jeff Ne al’ s testim ony

that the recording sy stem wa s provid ed by

an outsid e contractor, Co rrec t So lu ti on s. (R.R . vo l. VII p g. 2 27 -2 40 ). Fo r the se r ea sons , the S tate did not e sta bli sh the pr ope r fo undatio n f or the adm iss ionof

the te le phon e re co rd ing in al l f ive c as es . Ha rm fu l E rr or An erro r m

us t af fectth e subs tant ia l ri gh ts of t he accu se d t o b e h arm fu l. See T ex . R. App. P . 44. 2( b) . A"s ubst antia l r igh t" is af fe ct ed whe n th e er

ro r ha d a subs tant ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n d et erm in in g the jury's ver di ct . Ki ng v. Sta te , 95 3 S .W .2d26 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 97 ) (ci ti ng Tex. R. Ap p. P. 4 4.2 (b )). A lte rn at ive ly , e rr or

is harmle ss i f the e rr or

"d id n ot i nf

lue nc e the j ur

y , or ha d but a sligh t effe ct." Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 967 S . W . 2d 4 10, 417 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 8) . T he46

Appellant does notbear the burden to establish su ch harm ful err or. Sc hut z v . Sta te , 63 S . W . 3d 4 42, 444 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 43 S.W .3d1, 4 (T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) . R athe r, it is the r es pons ibi lity

of the appe llate c ourt t o as se ss harm

aft er re vi ewin g the reco rd . Sc hut z v . Sta te , 63 S . W . 3d 4 42, 444 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 43 S.W .3d1, 4 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 01 ). Evidence of the discussion o f esca pe by Darby wa s harm ful. T he j ury al read y he ardev id en ce tha t Dar

by hadco m

m it te d the fiv e o ffen se s atis su e. A ddi tio na lly , the j ur

y he ar d e vid en ce a s to tw o un ad j udi cate d se xua l a ssa

ult s by Darb y . Thu s, the jury ha d h eardev id en ce o f a t ot al of s ev enoff en se s b y Darb y . Evidence of this alleged discussio n of escape a llowed the j ury to consid er a

total of e igh t of fe nse s whe n se tti ng the pun ishm ent onthe und er ly ing f ive of fe nse s. A ddi tio na lly , e vid en ce of the dis cu ssi on o f es ca

pe e sta bli she d inthe m ind s of

the j ur or s th e ide a that D ar

by whol ly r ef use d to a cc ep t punis hm ent f or the f ive of fe nse s. F or

the se r ea sons the a dm iss ionof e vid en ce of

the dis cu ssi on o f es ca

pe by Darby was harm fu l.47

Iss ue 5: D ar

by w as c onvi ct ed

of athi rd de gr ee f el ony of e va din g arr es t ( w itha ve hic le ). S houl d th is h av e be enastate j ai l f el ony pur suant t o th e c ontr a di c t or

y T e xa s P e na l C od e s e c t i on3 8. 04 ? D ar b y wa s f o un dg u i l ty o f

e v a d i n g arr e s t( w i thav e h i c l e ) , as t at e ja i l f e l o n y. Re gard le ss, the j udgm ent r ef le ct ed ac onvi ct ionof

athi rd de gr ee f el ony and the puni shm ent charge contained a third degree f elony punis hm ent range. T herefor e, D ar by r ec ei ve d th e inc or

re ct pun ishm ent r an ge in the pun ishm ent c harg e an d a se nt en ce o ut si de th e ap pr op ria te pu ni sh m en t ra ng e.

P re se rv at ion of

Er ro r T o pr es er ve ac om pla int f or appe llate r ev ie w , aparty m ust ge ne ra lly have pr es ente d to the tr ia l c ourt a ti m el y r eque st, obj ec tio n, or

m oti on that st at es the spe ci fi c gr ound s f

or the de sir ed

r uli ng, if the y are not appare nt f

ro m the c ont ex t of th e reque st , ob

jecti on , or m ot io n. See T ex . R. App. P . 33. 1( a) ; M osleyv . Sta te , 983 S.W .2d24 9, 2 65 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 98 ) (o p. o n re h'g ), cert. denied , 526 U. S. 1070 , 119 S . Ct . 146 6, 143 L . E d. 2d 5 50 ( 1999 ). F urthe r, the tr ia l c ourt m ust have ru le d onthe r eque st, obj ec tio n, or m oti on, e ith er

e xpr es sly

or im pli ci tly , or

the com plainin g party

m ust have ob

j ected to the trial court' s refusal to rule. Te x. R. App. P . 33. 1( a) (2 ); M

en de z v . Sta te , 138 S. W .3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim . App. 2004). How ever, err or which is based upon an abso lute right or prohib itionneed no t b e p res erv ed . M

ari n v . Sta te , 851 S . W . 2d 2 75 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 3) (discussin g three ty

pes of rights); se e als o G arc ia v . Sta te , 149 S . W . 3d 1 35, 14448

(Tex . Cri m . App . 20 04 ). Suc h e rro r is oft encal le d fu nd am en ta l erro r. Se e e. g. B rum it v. Sta te , 206 S. W .3d 639 (Tex. Crim . App. 2006). An error is consid ered fundam enta l whe n it

"d ir ec tly and a dve rs el y

a ff ec ts the int er es t of

the pub lic ge ne ral ly, as th atin te res t i s d ecl aredinth e st atut es or C on st itut io n o f th is st at e." R am se y v. D unlop , 146 T ex . 196 , 202 , 205 S . W . 2d 9 79, 983 ( 1947 ). Ade nia l of ab sol ute sy ste m ic r equir em ents d oe s no t r equir e a tim el y and s pe ci fi c obj ec tio n to rai se forth e fi rs t t im e o n app eal . Se e A ldr ic k v. Sta te , 104 S . W . 3d 8 90, 895 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 3) ; R odri

gue z v . Sta te , 71 S . W . 3d 8 00, 802 ( T ex . App. —T ex ar kana 2002 , no p et . ); R ushi ng v . Sta te , 50 S. W .3d 715, 723 (Tex. App. —W aco 2001), aff'd , 85 S.W .3d28 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 02 ). A "v oi d" or " il le ga l" sen te nc e is on e th atis no t au th or iz edby law. E x parte P en a , 71 S . W . 3d 3 36, 336 n. 2 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 2) ; se e M ize ll v. Sta te , 119 S. W . 3d 8 04, 806 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 3) ( "Ase nte nc e that i s outsi de the m axim um or m inim um range of punishm ent is unauth orized by lawand therefore ill eg al . ") ; Exparte Beck, 922 S. W .2d 181, 182 (Tex. Crim . App. 1996) (per curiam) (sentence of twe nty -five y ears' im prisonm ent for offe nse for which m ax im um r an ge of pun ishm ent w as tw o y ears ' im pr iso nm ent w as il le ga l) . S uc h a "v oi d" or " il le ga l" sen te nc e is fun da m en ta l erro r an d c anbe rai se d a t an y ti m e. Ex parte Beck, 922 S. W .2d 181, 182 (Tex. Crim . App. 1996) (per curiam). He re, Darby

wa s convicted of, and punis hed for, a third degree f elony , when the of fe nse of whic h he w as c onvi ct ed

pr ovi de s f

or onl y astate j ai l f

el ony co nvi ct ionand p uni shm ent. Atr ia l c ourt c om m its f undam enta l e rr or

by a llo w ing49

co nv ic ti on foran yth in g b utth e ch arg edoff en se or ales se r in cl ud edoff en se . Iv ory v. Sta te , 632 S. W .2d 614, 616 (Tex. Crim . App. [Panel Op. ] 1982 ). Asentence ou ts id e th e ran ge of p un is hm en t i s u naut ho riz ed . M ize ll v. Sta te , 119 S . W . 3d 8 04, 806 (T ex . Cr im . App. 200 3) ; Spe th v . Sta te , 6 S . W. 3 d5 3 0 , 5 3 2 - 3 3 ( T e x . C r i m. App. 1999 ) ("[ A] defendant has an absolute and n onwaivable right to be sentenced within the proper range of punishm ent established b y the Le gislature."). N o trial ob jecti onis requi redto ap pe al anun au th or iz edpu ni sh m en t. M ize ll , 119 S. W .3d at 80 6 n .6. Thus , th is erro r is fun da m en ta l an d n eedno t b e p res erv edat tria l.

Stand ard of R eview Whether a sentence is voidor illegal appears to be a question of law re vie w ed de novo . Se e e. g. H ea th v . Sta te , 817 S . W . 2d 3 35 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 1991 ).

La w an d A pp lic at ion Darby wa s found g uiltyof evading arrest ( with a vehicle) which should b e a st at e jail fel on y . Reg ard le ss , th e Ju dg m en t re fle ct eda th irdde gr ee fe lo ny. A ddi tio na lly , the pun ishm ent c harg e inc lud ed athi rd de gr ee f el ony pun ishm ent range . T he re fo re , D ar

by r ec ei ve d th e inc or

re ct pun ishm ent r an ge in the pu ni sh m en t ch arg e an d asen te nc e o ut si de th e ap pr op ria te pu ni sh m en t ra ng e. Darby wa s indicted with evading arr est (w ith a vehicle). (C. R. [6-15-42-CR]50

pg. 15) . L ike w ise , the j udgm ent r ef le ct s th at D ar by w as c onvi ct ed

of e va din g ar re st ( w ithave hic le ). ( C. R. [ 6- 15- 42- CR ] pg. 124 ). T ex as P en al Co de se ct ion 38. 04 p ro vid es in re le vant p ar t a s f oll ow s: Ev ad in g A rr es t orD et en ti on ( a ) Ap e r s o nc o mmi t s ano f f e n s e i f h e i n t e n t i o n a l l y f

l e e s f r o m a person he kno ws is a pea ce off icer or federa l special i n v e s t i g at o r

att e mp t i n g l aw f

u l l y t o arr e s to r

d e t a i nh i m. (b ) A n of

fe nse und er

thi s se ct ionis a Cl as s Am isd em eanor , e xc ep t that the of

fe nse is: (1) a state j ail felony

if: (A ) the a ct or

ha s be enpr ev iou sly

c onvi ct ed

und er thi s se ct ion ; or (B ) the a ct or

use s ave hic le or

w at er cr af

t whil e the actor is in flight and the actor has not been pr ev iou sly

c onvi ct ed

und er thi s se ct ion ; (2) a fe lonyof the third degree if: (A ) the a ct or

use s ave hic le or

w at er cr af

t whil e the ac tor is in f lig ht and the a ct or

ha s be enpr ev iou sly co nvi ct ed und er thi s se ct ion ; or (B) another suffers ser ious b odilyinjury as a direc t re sul t of an atte m pt b y the of fi ce r or inv es tig at or fr om whom the a ct or is fl ee ing to ap pr eh en d th e ac tor whil e the a ct or

is in f lig ht; or (1) a state j ail felony

if the ac tor has been pr ev iou sly

c onvi ct ed

und er thi s se ct ion ; (2) a fe lonyof the third degree if: (A ) the a ct or

use s ave hic le whil e the ac tor is in f lig ht; (B) another suffers ser ious b odilyinjury as adir ec t r es ult

of an atte m pt b y the of fi ce r or inv es tig at or

f ro m whom the ac tor is fl ee ing to ap pr eh en d th e ac tor whil e the a ct or

is in f lig ht; or51 (C) the actor uses a tire deflation device ag ai nst the of fi ce r whil e the ac tor is in f lig ht; or (3) a fe lonyof the second degree if: (A ) an oth er

suf fe rs de ath a s adir ec t r es ult of an atte m pt b y the of fi ce r or inv es tig at or

f ro m whom the a ct or is fl ee ing to ap pr eh en d th e ac tor whil e the a ct or is in f lig ht; or (B) another suffers ser ious b odilyinjury as a direc t result of the actor' s use of a tir e de fl at ionde vic e whil e the a ct or is in f lig ht. T ex . P en . Co de Ann. §38 . 04 ( W es t su pp. 201 4) (e m

pha sis a dde d) . T hus, pur suant to the e xpr es s te rm s of

se ct ion38. 04 ( b) (1 )( B) , D ar by ’ s e va din g arr es t w itha vehicle is a state j ail felony . How ever, section 38.04(b)(2)(B) (2)(A ) provides that su chanoff

en se is a th irdde gr ee fe lo ny in c on tra di ct io n o f se ct io n 3 8.0 4 (b )(1 )(B) . T hu s , th e T e x a s P e n a l C o d e p r o v i d e s c o n tr a d i c t o ry p un i s h me n t s f o r th e s ame of fen se . When a single penal prov ision provides cont radictory punis hm ents, the trial co urt sh oul d im

pose onl y the li ght er

pun ishm ent i n th e int er es t of f ai rn es s to the D ef en dant. A cc or din gly , thi s C ourt sh oul d a llo wonl y apun ishm ent f

or astate j ai l felony as expressly

stated in Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §38.04 (b)(1)(B) . H ow ev er , in A de tom iw a v . Sta te , the F ort W orth C ourt of Appe al s no te d th is dis cr ep an cy . 421 S . W . 3d 9 22, 926 ( T ex . App. ) Fo rt W orth 2 014, no p et . ). T he co urt r ec onc ile d th e dis cr ep an cy and c onc lud ed

that e va din g arr es t i n ave hic le52

was a th irdde gr ee fe lo ny, regar dl es s. Id . C iti ng A de tom iw a v . Sta te , the Beaum ont Court of Appeals likewise concluded the evading arrest (in a vehicle) was a th irdde gr ee o ffen se , reg ard le ss of t hi s d is crep an cy . State v. Sneed, N o. 09- 14- 0023 2- CR

( T ex . App. ) Be aum ont

S ep t. 24, 201 4, no p et . )( ci tin g Adetom iwa v. Sta te , 421 S . W . 3d 9 22, 926 ( T ex . App. ) Fort W orth 201 4, no pet.) ). Re gard le ss, thi s C ourt sh oul d de cl ine to fo llo wthe F ort W orth and Be aum ont

c ourts o f ap pe al . B othc ourts r ec ogni ze d th e dis cr ep an cy , but both re co nc ile d th e dis cr ep an cy to co nc lud e that e va din g arr es t ( in a ve hic le ) w as a th irdde gr ee o ffen se . State v. Sneed, N o. 09- 14- 0023 2- CR ( T ex . App. ) Be aum ont Se pt. 24, 201 4, no p et . ); A de tom iw a v . Sta te , 421 S . W . 3d 9 22, 926 ( T ex . App. ) Fort W orth 201 4, no pet.) . How ever, a re ading of bo th cases revea ls a lack o f ane xp r e s s b a s i s f

o r r e c o n c i l i n g th e d i s c r e p an c y. Id . The ap pl ic ab le pu ni sh m en t ra ng e fo r a s ta te jail fel on y is 18 0 d ay s t o two y ears and the pun ishm ent r an ge f or athi rd de gr ee f el ony is tw o to te n y ears . T ex . Pe n. Co de Ann. §12 . 34 ( W es t 20 11) ; T ex . P en . Co de Ann. §12. 35 ( W es t su pp. 2014 ). H er e, the thi rd

de gr ee pun ishm ent r an ge w as inc lud ed in the pun ishm ent ch ar ge . ( C. R. [ 6- 15- 42- CR ] pg. 106 ). A cc or din gly , if thi s c onvi ct ionsho uld

have be enastate j ai l f

el ony , the pun ishm ent r ec ei ve d by D ar by w as not sup porte d by the offense of which he was c onvi cted. Ther efore, Darby rec eived the incorrect puni shm ent r an ge in the pun ishm ent c harg e an d ase nte nc e out sid e the appr opr iate pu ni sh m en t ra ng e.53 Ha rm fu l E rr or An erro r m

us t af fectth e subs tant ia l ri gh ts of t he accu se d t o b e h arm fu l. See T ex . R. App. P . 44. 2( b) . A"s ubst antia l r igh t" is af fe ct ed whe n th e er

ro r ha d a subs tant ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n d et erm in in g the jury's ver di ct . Ki ng v. Sta te , 953 S . W . 2d 2 66 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 7) ( ci tin g Tex . R. App . P. 44 .2(b )). A lte rn at ive ly , e rr or

is harmle ss i f the e rr or

"d id n ot i nf

lue nc e the j ur

y , or ha d but a sligh t effe ct." Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 967 S . W . 2d 4 10, 417 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 8) . T he Appellant does notbear the burden to establish su ch harm ful err or. Sc hut z v . Sta te , 63 S . W . 3d 4 42, 444 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 43 S.W .3d1, 4 (T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) . R athe r, it is the r es pons ibi lity

of the appe llate c ourt t o as se ss harm

aft er re vi ewin g the reco rd . Sc hut z v . Sta te , 63 S . W . 3d 4 42, 444 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 1) ; Jo hnso n v . Sta te , 43 S.W .3d1, 4 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 01 ). He re, Darby

wa s convicted of a third degree fe lonyconviction and rece ived a te n y ear se nte nc e. ( C. R. [ 6- 15- 42- CR ] pg. 124 ). H ow ev er , D ar by sho uld have fa ce d astate j ai l f

el ony c onvi ct ionand a

pot entia l punis hm ent r an ge of 180 day s to two y ears . See Te x . P e n . C o d e An n . § 1 2 . 3 5 ( We s ts up p . 2 0 1 4 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y, D ar by ’ s th ir d de gr ee f

el ony c onvi ct ionand h is t eny ear se nte nc e w er e out sid e the ap pr op ria te pu ni sh m en t ra ng e an d was harm fu l erro r. T he pr ope r re m edy

f or una uth or iz ed pun ishm ent i s ane wpun ishm ent he ari ng . See T ex . Co de Cr im . P ro c. Ann. art . 44. 29( b) ( W es t S upp. 201 2) ; Spla wn v. Sta te , 160 S . W . 3d 1 03, 107 -0 8 ( T ex . App. ) Te xarkana 2005, pet. r ef' d). Ac cordingly , D arby ’ s convictio n shou ld be reversed and the ca se rem anded for a54

new punishment hearing.55

Iss ue 6: D ar

by ’ s j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( of ase nio r) inc or

re ct ly r e f l e c t e dap l e ao f

n o tg u i l ty. Iss ue 7: D ar

by ’ s j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( w ithade ad ly

w ea pon) i n c o rr e c t l y re f

l e c t e dap l e ao f

n o tg u i l ty. Iss ue 8: D ar

by ’ s j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( w ithade ad ly

w ea pon) i n c o rr e c t l y re f

l e c t e dap l e ao f

n o tg u i l ty. T he j udgm ent f

or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( of ase nio r) and tw o j udgm ents f or aggravated robbery

(w ith a deadly

we apon) all incorrectly

ref lect that D arby

pled not gu ilty . The thre e j udgm ents sho uld reflect pleas of guilt y . These are ty pogr ap hic al e rr or s th at

thi s C ourt sh oul d c or

re ct on the thr ee j udgm ents.

P re se rv at ion of

Er ro r T o pr es er ve ac om pla int f or our r ev ie w , aparty

m ust ge ne ra lly have pr es ente d to the tr ia l c ourt a ti m el y r eque st, obj ec tio n, or

m oti on that st at es the spe ci fi c gr ound s f

or the de sir ed

r uli ng, if the y are not appare nt f

ro m the c ont ex t of th e reque st , ob

jecti on , or m ot io n. See Te x. R. App. P. 33.1(a). H owever , ty pogr ap hic al e rr or s c anbe c or re ct ed on a ppe al and d o no t a

ppe ar to have to have be enpre se rv edat tria l. Se e e. g. G rayv . Sta te , 628 S . W . 2d 2 28 ( T ex . App. —C or

pus Chri sti 198 2, pe t. r ef ’ d) ( ci tin g Lu na v . Sta te , 288 S . W . 465 ( T ex . Crim . App. 1926)).56 Stand ard of R eview Co un se l i s u nabl e to lo cat e a s pe ci fic al ly app li cab le st an da rdof r ev ie w. Regardless, this is p resum ably review ed as a legal r

uling which is review ed by an ap pe llate c ourt denov o. Se e W all v . Sta te , 184 S . W . 3d 7 30, 742 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 2006 ).

La w an d A pp lic at ion Darb y pl eadgu il ty to al l fi ve ch arg es ag ai ns t h im . (R.R. vo l. IV p g. 1 0- 17 ). Ba se d up on those ple as , the tr ia l c ourt a dj udi cate d D ar by of a ll of the se of fe nse s. (C . R. [ 6- 15- 42- CR ] pg. 124 ;[ 6- 15- 43- CR ] pg. 128 ); [6 -1 5- 44- CR ] pg. 126 ;C . R. [ 6- 15- 46- CR ] pg. 123 ; [ 6- 15- 45- CR ] pg. 130 ). H ow ev er , the j udgm ent f or ag gr av at ed

r obbe ry ( of ase nio r) and tw o j udgm ents f or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry ( w itha de ad ly w ea pon) c ont ai n ty

pogr ap hic al e rr or s and i nc or re ct ly r ef le ct ed that D ar by ple d no t gu ilty

to the se of

fe nse s. Su ch typo g rap h i ca l erro rs ar e p ro p er l y b ro u g h tt o th e ap p el l at e c o urt ’s at te nt io n i n an app eal . Se e G rayv . Sta te , 628 S . W . 2d 2 28 ( T ex . App. —C or pus Christi 198 2, pet. ref

’ d) ( ci ting L una v. Sta te , 288 S . W . 465 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 1926 ) an d Ch am

pio n v . Sta te , 281 S. W . 546 (T ex. C rim . App. 1926)). T herefor e, thi s is sue is br ough t t o th is C ourt’ s atte nti on i n th is a ppe al . T his Co urt sh oul d m odi fy the j udgm ents a s f

oll ow s: Judgm ent 2: Aggravated assault (of a senior) (C.R. [6 -1 5- 43 -CR] pg .57

128) Pl ea

to O ff en se : Guil ty Judgm ent 3: Aggravated assault (with a deadly w eapon) (C. R. [6 -1 5- 44- CR ] pg. 126 ) Pl ea to O ff en se : Guil ty Judgm ent 4: Aggravated assault (with a deadly w eapon) (C. R. [6 -1 5- 46- CR ] pg. 123 ) Pl ea to O ff en se : Guil ty Ha rm fu l E rr or Aharmle ss e rr or

ana ly sis doe s no t a

ppe ar to be appl ic ab le in re que sts f or co rrec ti on to jud gm en ts onap pe al . Se e e. g. G rayv . Sta te , 628 S . W . 2d 2 28 ( T ex . App. —C or

pus Chri sti 198 2, pe t. r ef ’ d) ( ci tin g L una v. Sta te , 288 S . W . 465 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 192 6) ). I n G ray , the c ourt a ddr es se d an in co rr ec t date in a j udgm ent bu t d idno t co nduc t a h arm le ss erro r an al y si s. Id .58 P RAYER W H E RE FO RE , pr emise s c onsi de re d, Ri ch ar d D ar by , I II r es pe ct fu lly requests that this conviction be rever sed and judgm ent rendered in his favor, that the c onvi ct ionbe r ev er se d and a ne wtr ia l gr ante d, that hi s j udgm ents b e am en de d, an d/o r fo r suc h othe r an d f urthe r re lie f to whic h Appe llant m ay be e nti tle d.

Res pe ct fu ll y

Subm it te d, Mil le r, Ja mes , Mil le r & Horns by, L.L.P. By :__

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ T ro y H or nsby T ex as Bar Num

be r 0079 0919 1725 G al le ri a O ak s D ri ve T ex ar kana , T ex as 755 03 tr oy . hor nsby @gm ai l. co m 903. 794. 2711 , f

. 903 . 792. 1276 Attorney for Appellant Richard Dar by , I II59 C ERTIF ICATE O F S ERVICE T his is to c er

tif y that onJun e 4, 201 5, atr ue and c or

re ct c opy of the above and fo re goi ng Appellant’s Brief ha s be enf

or w ar de d by

U . S. m ai l ona ll co unse l of reco rdan d i nt eres te d p arty li st edbe lo w: Ap pellant Richard D arby , I II Bowie C ount y

Corre ctional Center 100 N. S tate L ine Ave. Bi -S tate Jus tic e Bu ild ing T ex ar kana , T ex as 755 01 Tr ialC ou rtJu dg e Honorable Bobby

Lockhart 102n d D istri ct

Jud ge Bi -S tate Jus tic e Bu ild ing 100 N orth S tate L ine A ve nue T ex ar kana , T ex as 755 01 State 's Att orney Sam antha O gle sby Bowie C nty

Dist. Attorney 's O ffice 601 Main Street T ex ar kana , T ex as 755 01 De fend ant's Trial A ttorn ey Wi l l Wi l l i ams Bowie C o. Public D efender' s Of f. 424 W . B road Stree t T ex ar kana , T ex as 755 01

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ T ro y H or nsby60 C ER TIFICAT E OF C OMPLI ANCE Pursuant to Texas Rule of A ppellate Procedure 9.4, the undersign ed counsel ce rt if ie s th at , e xc lus ive of

the e xe m pte d po rt ion s inT ex as Ru le of Appe llate Pr oc ed ur e 9. 4( i) (1 ), thi s br ie f co nta ins 9, 484 w or ds ( le ss than 15 , 000) , ba se d up on the w or d c ount

of the W or dP er fe ct

pr ogr am use d to pr ep ar e the doc um ent.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ T ro y H or nsby