AFFIRM; Opinion Filed February 6,2013.

In The 

## (!!nurt nf ppiata 3IiftI 3iatrirt nf ixa at Oatta No. 05-11-01493-CR CECILIA MARIE OGLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11-51619-T 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Fillmore, and Myers Opinion By Justice Moseley Ajury convicted CeciliaMarie Ogle ofmurderinghermother, Sheila Ogle. 1 The victimdied after Ogle ran over her with the victim’s car. Ogle asserts three issues in this appeal: (1) the evidence was legallyinsufficientto supportthe verdict; (2) thetrial court erredby admitting autopsy photos; and (3) the trial court violated Ogle’s right to counsel when it sustained an objection by the State during the defense’s closing argument. The background and facts ofthe case are well-known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here in detail. Because all dispositive issues are settled

1 We refer to appellant Cecilia Ogle as “Ogle” and her mother as “the victim”in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX, R. APP. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court’sjudgment. In her first issue, Ogle challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction. We applythe appropriate legal sufficiency standard ofreview. SeeJackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Adames v. State, 353 S,W.3d 854, 860 (Tex. Crim, App. 2011). We “view all ofthe evidence in the light most favorable to the verdictto detennine whether anyrational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Adaines, 353 S.W.3d at 860. We measure the sufficiency ofthe evidence by the elements ofthe offense as definedby ahypothetically correctjury charge. See id. (citing Malikv. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). As applicablehere, aperson commits murderifhe “intentionally orknowingly causes the death ofan individual” or ifhe “intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death ofan individual.” TEx. PENAL CODE 

### § 19.02(b) (West 201 1). Ogle concedes she “drove the car which struck Sheila Ogle.” However, she challenges the jury’s ability to find, based on the evidence, that she intentionally orknowingly caused the victim’s death or that she intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life. There is evidence Ogle lived in a house with the victim; the victim was disabled, moved slowly, and used a cane. On the night ofthe murder, Ogle and her friends smoked marijuana and drank alcohol at the house. Ogle and the victim argued over whether Ogle could use the victim’s
carto go to abarto continue drinking. During the argumentboth women stood behind the victim’s car, which was parked in the driveway.

—2--A witness saw the car moving backward out ofthe driveway and saw the victim underneath the car. He then saw the driver put the car in drive and move the car back into the driveway while the victim remained under the car. When Ogle put the car in drive, the witness heard the “tires squeal” and saw “gravelbeing thrown, afew rocks. I couldhearthe [victim] beingrolledunderneath the car.” Ogle returnedthe carto the driveway “pretty much atthe original spotbecause the [victim]
was backunderneath the backbumper slightly. She was still underneaththe carbutnotvery much.” The witness saw the victim’s cane in the middle ofthe road. When Ogle gotout ofthe car, she went to the rear ofthe car, pulled the victimfrom underthe carbythe victim’s arm, held the victim’s head up by herhair and said “Mom, what’s wrong with you? What are you doing?” Ogle did not attempt to render aid. When the paramedics arrived, halfofthe victim’s body was underneath the trunk ofthe car. She was notbreathing, hadno pulse, was unconscious andunresponsive, andhadno vital signs. The victim was pronounced dead at the hospital. The medical examiner testified the victim died from blunt force injuries “from the head down to herfeet.” She stated: “[t]here were injuries on basically every body surface. The front of the chest, abdomen, back, front of the legs, back of the legs, everywhere.” Aparamedic who treatedthe victim atthe scenetestifiedthat inhis experiencewhen aperson accidentally has beenrun overby acar: “A lot oftimes it will be more ofa

- ifit’s going inreverse, as in this case, it will be where the patient or the patient will bounce offofthe hood or bounce off ofthe trunk ofthe car and not be sucked up underneath. It will be a bounce and then a stop.” The level oftrauma and extent ofthe injuries to the victim were more significant than when someone is
run over accidentally.

—3—Considering all of the evidence (including that summarized above) in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude arational trier offact could have found Ogle guilty ofmurder beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Adames, 353 S.W.3d at 860. Based on the evidence, arationaljury couldhavebelievedOgle intentionallyorknowingly causedthe victim’s death by using the car to strike the victim or she intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life. Thus, we overrule Ogle’s first issue. In her second issue, Ogle argues the trial court erred by admitting autopsy photographs because they had a prejudicial effect. At trial, Ogle’s counsel stated he did not contest the fact that the victim was dead or the manner ofher death; he only argued the photos were cumulative and unfairly prejudicial. We review a trial court’s decision to admit photographs for an abuse of discretion. SeeDavis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317, 331 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). “Autopsyphotographs
are generally admissible unless they depict mutilation ofthe victim caused by the autopsy itself.” Id. The Statebears the burden to show the crime occurred; “and the photographic representation of the injuries tends to establish this element in a way which testimony by witnesses could notbe [sic] accurately portray.” Lanham v. State, 474 S.W.2d 197, 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). The medical examiner testified about the autopsy and explained the purpose ofthe autopsy photos, all ofwhich evidenced the victim’s external injuries. The medical examinerexplained that the photographs showed “all ofthe external injuries to boththe front andbackofthe [victim’s] trunk

• . . It’s our responsibility to document those very carefully, measure them, state exactly where they
are. Basically what they are is a series of abrasions and contusions to both the front and back surfaces ofher trunk.” She used the autopsy photos to show other injuries to the victim, including
a “very large contusion or bruise with some abraded areas” on the back ofthe victim’s head, road rash to her abdomen, contusions to the back ofthe victim’s arm and to herupper and mid back, and

-4-deep scraping to her shoulder, Moreover, none ofthe photos shows any mutilation to the body caused by the medical examiner’s examination. Because the autopsy photos were probative ofthe issue ofwhether the victim’s death was an intentional killing with multiple injuries inflicted on the victim, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining the probative value ofthe photographs was not substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect, if any. See TEx. R. EviD. 403 (trial court may exclude relevant evidence ifprobative value substantially outweighed by danger ofunfairprejudice); Davis, 3 13 S.W.3d at 33 1 (abuse ofdiscretion review). We overrule Ogle’s second issue. During Ogle’s counsel’s closing arguments, the trial court twice sustained the State’s objection that counsel was arguing “facts not in evidence and outside the scope” ofthe record. In her third issue, Ogle asserts that in doing so the trial court deprived Ogle ofher right to counsel. Ogle’s counsel never informed the trial court that, by sustaining the State’s objections, the Court was depriving Ogle ofher right to counsel. Thus, Ogle has waived this complaint. See TEx. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Castanecla v State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (for
error to be preserved for appeal, the record must show appellant made a timely request, objection,
ormotion). Accordingly, because Oglehas notpreservedthis issue for appellate review, we overrule her third issue. A Having iesolved Ogic s three issues, we affirn 4 ie triaX court’s Judgment 

## / / ) /7 /7

1/ 

## [ / AIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEx. R. App. P.47 11 l493F.U05

—5—

## QL1LTrI til Fifti itrirt of i’xt; it 

### JiLLt JUDGMENT CECILIA MARIE OGLE, Appellant No. 05-I 1-01493-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas. (Tr,CtNo. Cause No. F11-51619-T). Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Justices Fillmore and Myers participating. Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, thejudgment ofthe trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered February 6, 2013.

JIM $DSELEY ST1CE