i i i i i i



### M EMOR

AN DU M OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 37 6- CR Emilio Travino CI NT RO N , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 187th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-3983 Honora ble Ray mond Ang elini, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Fe bruar y 11, 2009 AFF I RMED Em ili o T ra

vin o Ci ntr on

wa s c on vic te d o f n ine c ounts of a g g ra vate d sexua l ass a

ult of a c hil d
a nd nin e c ount s of in decency wi th a c hil d. On

a pp e a l, C int

ro n a rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in
a dmi tti ng t h e t e s t i m o n y o f f o u r o f t h e S t a t e ’ s p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e w i t n e s s e s a n d i n o v e r r u l i n g his objection to the cumulation of sente nces. We a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.04

- 08

- 00 37 6- CR

- 2- F A C TUA L B ACKG ROUND I n 2005, ten-y ear -old A.R. told her a unt that her mother’ s live-in boy friend, E milio Travino Cintron, w as sexually

abusing her. A .R.’s aunt took A.R. to the Santa Rosa Children’s Hospital wh e re A. R. e xpla ine d th a t Cin tr on ha d s e xua lly

a ssa ult e d h e r b oth

va g ina lly

a nd a na lly a lmo st
ever y day sin ce s h e wa s four y ear s old. Santa Rosa personne l alerte d the San Antonio Police Depa rtment and Child Protective Service s, which both spoke to A.R. about the incide nts. Cin tr on wa s c ha

rg e d by ind ic tme nt wi th nin e c ounts of a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult of a c hil d and nine c ounts of indece ncy with a child. The indictment also conta ined an e nhance ment para g raph
a lle g ingtha

t Cin tr on ha d p re vio us ly

be e n c on vic te d o f a ssa

ult of a c hil d. F oll ow inga

jur y tr ia l, Cin tr on wa s found g uil ty

on a ll e ig hte e n c ounts , a

nd the jur y fo un d th e e nh a nc e me nt a lle g a tio n to be tr ue . Ci ntr on was sen ten ced to e ig hte e n li fe imp ri so nme nts and e ig hte e n f

ine s o f $ 10 ,0 00 ; a ll sentenc es and f

ines wer e to run concur

rently except for the sentenc es and fines in Count I and Count VI Iwith Count I not beg inning until the sentenc e and f ine in Count VI Iwas c ompleted. A D M IS SI O N O F E V I D ENC E AT P U N I SHM ENT P H A SE O F T RI AL I n his first point, C intron argues that the trial court e rre d in overrulinghis objections to the testimony of four of the State’s punishment phase witnesses. Cintron a rg ues that the testimony

of
eac h of t he witnesses violated Tex as Rule of Evidence 403 beca use t he probative value of eac h of the witness’s testi mony was subst antially outweig hed by the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice, a

nd in two specific instances, the te stimony was c umulative of other e vidence prese nted by the State. We reviewa trial c ourt’s dec ision to admi t evidenc e duringthe punishment phase of trial under a n abuse of

discretion standa

rd. Mi tc he ll v . S

tat e , 931 S.W .2d 950, 953 (Tex . Crim. App. 1996). “The trial court ha s broad discr etion in determining admissi bility of evide nce at the04

- 08

- 00 37 6- CR

- 3- punishment phase of tria l.” Coo k s v . S tat e , 844 S.W .2d 697, 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). During the punishment phase, “ the jury is conce rned . . .w ith evaluating a def endan t ’s backg round and char acte r indepe ndent of the c ommissi on of the c rime on trial.” Sp ar k ma n v . S tat e , 580 S.W .2d 358, 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (emphasis remove d). To addre ss this concern, a rticle 37.07, sec tion 3 o f T e xas C od e of

Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure pr ov ide s: [E] vidence may

be off ere d by the state a

nd the def

endant a s to any matter the c ourt dee ms releva nt to senten cing, including but not limit ed to the prior criminal rec ord of the defe ndant, his ge nera l reputation, his charac ter, a n opinion reg ardin g his chara cter , the circ umstances of the offe nse for which he is be ing tried, a nd notwithstanding Rules 404 and 405, Texas Rules of Evidence , any other evidenc e of an extraneous crime or bad act th at i s s hown bey ond a re asonable doubt by evidenc e to have been c ommitt ed by the def endant or for whic h he could be held cr i m inally responsible, re g a rd le ss o f w he the r h e ha s pr e vio us ly be e n c ha rg e d wi th o r f

ina lly convicted of

the cr ime or ac t. T EX . C ODE . C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 37.07(3) (a) (1) ( Ver non Supp. 2008). Article 37.07, se ction 3 specific ally

rec og nizes that a defe ndant’s prior bad acts may be re levant to sentenc ing. Id .; Haney

v . S tat e , 951 S.W .2d 551, 554 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.). Evide nce c oncer ning a defe ndant’s ba d a c ts a llo ws jur or s to learn “ ‘a s muc h use fu l inf or ma tio n as pos sib le in d e c idi ngthe a pp ro pr ia te punishment for [an] i ndividual defe ndant.’” Haney , 9 5 1 S
. W
. 2 d at 5 5 5 (q u o t i n g Me nd

iol a v . S tat e , 924 S.W .2d 157, 163 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, pet. ref’d, untimely filed)) . Moreove r,
a rt ic le 37 .0 7, se c tio n 3 pr ov ide s th a t e vid e nc e a bo ut a de fe nd a nt’ s ba d a c ts i s a dmi ssi ble “ re g a rd le ss of whe ther he has pre viously been c harg ed with or fina lly convicted of the crime or

act.” T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 37.03(3) (a) (1).

“ Al tho ug h r e le va

nt, e vid e nc e may

be e xclu de d if

its pr obati ve valu e is s ub sta nti a lly outweig hed by

the dang er of unfair prejudice , confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury , or by04

- 08

- 00 37 6- CR

- 4- considerations of undue delay , or nee dless prese ntation of cumulative e vidence .” T EX . R. E V ID . 403
. We p r e s u me “ th a t r e le v a n t e v id e n c e w il l b e mo r e p r o b a ti v e th a n p r e ju d ic ia l.” Co nn er v. S

tat e , 67 S.W. 3d 19 2, 20 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ); ac c or d S an te lla n v . S

tat e , 939 S.W .2d 155, 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Only when “a clear disparity [ex ists] betwee n the deg ree of pre judice of the evidenc e and its proba tive value” will Rul e 403 re quire the e x clusion of evidenc e. Conner , 67 S
. W
. 3 d at 2 0 2 (c i t i n g J

on es v . S tat e , 944 S.W .2d 642, 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)). I n thi s c a se , the Sta te pr e se nte d fo ur wi tne sse s to te sti fy re g a rd ing Cin tr on ’s pr ior ba d a c ts. R.R. I I , A.R.’s older br other, testified Cintron was often in a bad mood and choked or hit him on a regular ba sis. Veronica

Mag ana, the mother of the c hild Ci ntron was pr eviously convicted f

or assaulting , testified Cintron hit and choked her on multipl e occ asions during their re lationship. S he also testified about the night Ci ntron beat her t wo-y ear -old son with a wooden ba ck scr atche r af ter Cintron had choked he r and busted her lip. Cleo Gonzales, a for mer g irlfriend of

Cintron, testified Cintron assaulted her

and her mother in 1994 when he struck her and pushed he r m o t her into a kit c he n b oo th. L a stl y , A .M .R. , A .R. ’s mot he r, te sti fi e d Ci ntr on wa s fr e qu e ntl y ma d an d wou ld h it, slap, and c hoke her

as we ll as spit in her fac e. I nd ivi du a lly , e a c h o f t he fo ur w it nes ses tes ti fi ed re gardi ng th eir own pers on al e xpe ri e nc e wi th Cintron’s abusive beha

vior which wa s probative of Cintron’s prio r b ad ac t s . The c ollective testimony , howeve r, wa s probative of Cintron’s ongoing , repe ated pattern of a buse which the witnesses could not individually establish. The collective testimony assisted the jury in evaluating Cintron’s char acte r and his mora l blameworthiness for punish m en t p u rposes. Althoug h the testimony was pre judicial beca

use of the ve ry

nature of t he abusive acts in which Cintron eng ag ed, it was not “unfa irly

prejudicia l” under

Rule 403 of the Te x as Rules of Evidenc e. “‘ Unfa ir prejudice ’04

- 08

- 00 37 6- CR

- 5- does not, of cour se, mea

n that the evidence injure s the opponent’s c ase—the centr al point of offe ring evidenc e.” Coh n v . S

tat e , 849 S.W .2d 817, 820 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (citation omitted). Rather , a s u se d in

Rul e 40 3, “ ‘u

nf a ir preju dic e ’ m e a ns the un du e te nd e nc y of the e vid e nc e to s ug g e st a decision on an improper basis.” Fl or es v . S tat e , 1 25 S.W. 3d

74 4, 74 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t Di st. ] 200 3, no pe t.) . T he e vid e nc e in t his c a se on ly

su gg e ste d th a t Cin tr on

be punis he d f

or his
mo r a l b la me w o rth in e s s a n d h is c h a r a c te r w h ic h w e r e p r o p e r b a s e s f o r th e ju r y to c onsider. See Ro dr igu e z v . S tat e , 2 03 S.W. 3d 83 7, 84 3- 44 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ) ( ho ldi ngthat th e tr ia l c ourt did not abuse its discretion in over ruling a Rule 403 o b

j ec t i o n wher e evide nce w as probative of the
a pp e lla nt’ s mo ra l bl a me wo rt

hiness ). Ac c or din g ly , th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in concluding that the probative value of the evidenc e wa s not substantially outweig hed by

the dang er of unfa ir prejudice . Cintron’s first point of error is overrule d. C U M U LA TIO N O F S ENTEN C ES I n h is s e c on d p oin t, C int

ro n a rgue s that the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d wh e n it imp lie dly ov e rr ule d h is
o b j e c t i o n t o t h e c u m u l a t i o n o f s e n t e n c e s b y s t a c k i n g t w o o f t h e l i f e s e n t e n c e s i mp o s e d

b y t h e j u r y. Cintron arg ues that since he was thirty -six y ear s old when he w as sentenc ed, the tria l court’s de cision to stack two of his life sentenc es would not allow him to be eligible f or par ole until his m id-90s. As
a re su lt, Cin tr on

a rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ’s de c isi on to s e nte nc e him

to two c on se c uti ve lif

e te rm s constitutes crue l and unusual punishment unde r the “ evolving standards of dece ncy ” g uara

nteed by the Eig hth Amendment and is disproportionate to the of fense s. T exas courts have traditionally held that as long as the punishment assesse d is within t he
r a n g e p r e s c r ib e d b y th e L e g is latu r e in a v a li d s tatute , th e p u n is h me n t is n o t e xc e s s ive, cr uel, or unusual. See, e .g. , J

or da n v . S tat e , 4 95 S.W. 2d 94 9, 95 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 73 ); Tre v ino v . S tat e ,04

- 08

- 00 37 6- CR

- 6- 174 S.W .3d 925, 928 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d)
. Under the Texas Penal Code,
a c o n v i c t i o n o f a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a c h i l d c a r

r i e s a r a n g e o f p u n i s h m e n t o f f i v e t o n i n e t ynine y ear s or life imprisonment and up to a $10,000 f ine. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.32(a) , (b) (Ve rnon 2003); § 22.021(a ), (b) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). Fur thermore , when a

defe ndant is convicted of two or more c ases, the “ jud gm en t and sentenc e shall be pr onounced in ea ch case in the same manne r as if the re ha d been but one conviction.” T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 42.08(a ) (Ve rnon 2006). Th e tr ia l court g e ne ra lly has the discr etion to order the sentenc es to run conse cutively or conc urre ntly
. Id
. Und e r b o th th e T e xa s Co n s ti tuti o n a n d th e E ig h th A me n d me n t o f th e U n it ed States Constit ution, however , “a pr ohibition aga inst g rossly disproportionate punishment survives. . .a part from any consideration of whether the punishment assesse d is within t he ra ng e esta blished by

the L e g islature.” See U. S. C O N ST . ame nd . V I I I ; T EX . C O N ST . a rt I , § 3; Mu lli ns v . S

tat e , 208 S.W .3d 46 9, 47 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 06 , no pet .) . “ B y

de te rm ini ngwh e the r a

se nte nc e is g ro ssl y disproportionate to the crime, we [ balanc e] the gravity of t he offense a g ainst the leng th of the prison sentenc e.” Se e Kru mb olt

z v . S tat e , 945 S.W .2d 176, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). I n this case, Cintron wa s char g ed with nine counts of ag g ravated sexual a ssault of a child and nin e c ounts of ind e c e nc y wi th a ch ild . T he jur y fo un d Ci ntr on

g uil ty on a ll e ig hte e n c ounts a s w e ll as found the e nhancem ent par ag raph to be true. In light of the nature of Cintron’s offe nses, the punishment rang e ava ilable for e ach o f f e nse, and the imposit ion of conc urre nt sentence s as to six teen of the counts, we are unable to find that the trial cour t’s decision to run the se ntence s as to two of the c ounts c on se c uti ve ly

vio la te s th e Ei g hth

Am e ndme nt o f t

he Un ite d St a te s Co ns tit

uti on or art ic le I , section 13 of the T exas Const itution. Acc ording ly , Cintron’s second point is overrule d.04

- 08

- 00 37 6- CR

- 7- C ONCL US I ON We affir m the judgme nt of the trial cour t. Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice
DO NOT PUBL I SH.