Affirm and Opinion Filed March 27, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-12-01694-CR FRANCISCO ALVAREZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-0973175-P 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Evans Opinion by Justice Bridges Francisco Alvarez appeals his conviction of faili ng to register as a sex offender. A jury convicted appellant and sentenced him to twelve y ears’ confinement. In a single issue, appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting certain te stimony. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. In December 2009, a warrant issued for appella nt’s arrest on a charge of failure to comply with his sex offender registration require ment. The warrant alleged a prior conviction for indecency with a child by contact in March 1996 and two prior convictions for failure to comply with sex offender registration requiremen ts, both resulting in jail time. The warrant alleged appellant was required to register as a sex offender in Ma y 2009 but failed to register. Appellant was subsequently indicted for faili ng to comply with sex offender registration requirements. Prior to trial, the State gave appellant notice it intended to introduce evidence of–2– prior convictions for DWI, theft by check, indecen cy with a child by contact, and failure to register as a sex offender. At trial, Dallas police detective Lori Tittle testified she was assigned to the Sex Offender Apprehension Program, which handled cases i nvolving sex offenders “not living at their address.” Over appellant’s h earsay objection, Tittle testified she was contacted by Detective Nunn who had been contacted by a constable attempting to serve appellant with some paperwork at appellant’s registered address. The constabl e was unable to find appella nt at his registered address for more than a year. Nunn checked into the matter, realized appellant was six months late on his sex offender registrati on, and referred the matter to Tittle . Tittle checked the national sex offender database to make sure appellant had not registered with anothe r agency. Tittle also checked with the Dallas Police Department but could find no information indicating appellant had registered anywhere else. On November 30, 2009, Tittle spoke to appellant on the telephone, and appellant said he was in San Ant onio visiting his mother. Appellant “basically didn’t have a reason for why he had not update d his sex offender registration.” Appellant seemed “pretty aware of the procedure for regist ering,” and he did register on December 8, 2009. However, that date was outside the “allowable regi stration time line.” A jury convicted appellant of failing to register as a sex o ffender, and this appeal followed. In a single issue, appellant argues the trial c ourt erred in admitting hearsay evidence that appellant was not living at the address for which he was registered. We review the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence unde r an abuse of discretion standard. Martinez v. State , 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The tria l court does not abuse its discretion unless its determination lies outside the zo ne of reasonable disagreement. Id. Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declar ant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. T EX
. R. E VID . 801(d). An extraj udicial statement or–3– writing which is offered for the purpose of showing what was said rather than for the truth of the matter stated therein does not constitute hearsay. Dinkins v. State , 894 S.W.2d 330, 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Police officers may testify to explain how an investigation began and how a defendant became a suspect. Lee v. State , 29 S.W.3d 570, 577 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.) (detective’s testimony his investiga tion of appellant resulted from interview with third party not hearsay). Appellant concedes “a poli ce officer’s testimony about how a defendant became a suspect, as it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, does not constitute inadmissible hearsay,” citing Parker v. State , 192 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). However, appellant argues, “the State, after in itially eliciting testimony that Alvarez did not live at home under the pretenses of estab lishing how the dete ctive became aware Alvarez, [sic] later introduced it in an effort to show that Alvarez in fact did not live there.” In making this argument, appellant cites the record containing his testimony at the punishment phase of trial. The prosecutor, during cross- examination, asked appellant about his absences from his registered residence, stating “we hear d testimony that when this deputy was trying to find you for a long time and kept going back to that address and coul d never find you. In fact, it appeared that your house that you were registered at was vacant.” Appella nt’s counsel objected, “I don’t remember that from the testimony.” Wh en asked by the trial court for a legal objection, counsel stated, “That it’s a misstatement of the f acts, Your Honor.” The trial court overruled the objection. As appellant concedes, Tittle’s testimony c oncerning Nunn’s statements was not hearsay because it was offered to show how appellant’s failu re to register came to light, not for the truth of the matter asserted. See Parker , 192 S.W.3d at 807. Appellant has cited no authority for the proposition that such testimony concerning an i nvestigation is transmuted into hearsay by–4– subsequent reference to the testimony during cr oss-examination of a defendant testifying at punishment. Further, appellant did not raise a h earsay objection at trial, instead objecting to “a misstatement of facts.” Thus, to the extent he complains about the hearsay content of the State’s cross-examination at punishment, he has not preserved this error for our review. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 33.1(a)(1). We overrule appellant’s sole issue. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 121694F.U05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
FRANCISCO ALVAREZ, Appellant No. 05-12-01694-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-0973175-P. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Moseley and Evans participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered March 27, 2014

/David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE