COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00103-CR

DONALD GREGORY 

STEPHENSON

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CR11864

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant Donald Gregory Stephenson appeals the trial court’s judgment 

sentencing him to life in prison after he entered an open plea of guilty to the 

State’s charge of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

to-wit: methamphetamine in the amount of more than four grams but less than 

200 grams. Stephenson also pleaded true to the State’s enhancement 

paragraph, which alleged a previous felony conviction for possession of 

methamphetamine. In one point, Stephenson argues that the trial court erred by 

allowing the State to introduce at the punishment hearing photographs made 

from the contents of his cellphone, and that this error entitles him to a new trial 

on punishment. We will affirm.

II. DISCUSSION

At the plea-and-punishment hearing, the State called two witnesses. 

Arresting Officer Richard Branum testified that he arrested Stephenson and 

found 17.24 grams of methamphetamine on him. During the arrest, Branum 

looked at several images that were on Stephenson’s cellphone. These images 

tend to link Stephenson with the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas. Stephenson 

objected to the admission of the photographs into evidence. The trial court 

overruled his objection.

The State also called Officer Monte Dirickson, who testified that he 

specialized in gang-related crime investigations, specifically the Aryan 

Brotherhood of Texas. Dirickson stated that he had previously testified at 

another trial regarding the Aryan Brotherhood. He also testified that he was 

aware of Stephenson and had investigated him personally. According to 

Dirickson, Stephenson was a known member of the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas 

and his name appeared on several different “official rosters” of Aryan 
3

Brotherhood members. These rosters had been seized during other search 

warrants.

By Dirickson’s account, Stephenson is known to hold Aryan Brotherhood 

meetings at his house. The Aryan Brotherhood refers to these meetings as 

“church.” Dirickson also testified that Stephenson was under indictment on an 

unrelated charge of engaging in organized criminal activity in Palo Pinto County. 

Dirickson further stated that he had received other information about 

Stephenson’s Aryan Brotherhood involvement from confidential informants. At 

the close of the hearing, the trial judge sentenced Stephenson to life, entered 

judgment accordingly, and this appeal followed.

Assuming without deciding that Branum obtained the photographs made 

from the contents of Stephenson’s cellphone through a violation of search and 

seizure law, and that they should have been excluded from evidence, we must 

reverse the conviction unless we determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

admission of these photographs did not contribute to his conviction. Tex. R. App. 

P. 44.2(a); Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); 

Davis v. State, 203 S.W.3d 845, 849–53 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), cert. denied, 

549 U.S. 1344 (2007). To make that determination, we consider the importance 

of the evidence to the State’s case, whether the erroneously admitted evidence 

was cumulative of other evidence, the presence or absence of evidence 

corroborating or contradicting the erroneously admitted evidence on material 
4

points, and the overall strength of the State’s case. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 

U.S. 673, 684, 106 S. Ct. 1431, 1438 (1986); Langham, 305 S.W.3d at 582.

Here, the photographs made from the contents from Stephenson’s 

cellphone were cumulative of other evidence of similar effect. The photographs 

tended to link Stephenson to the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, but the State 

introduced this same evidence and more through the testimony of Dirickson. 

Indeed, Dirickson testified that he was specifically trained for “gang cases” and 

that he had been investigating gangs, specifically the Aryan Brotherhood of 

Texas, for the past eight years. He averred that he had personally investigated 

Stephenson and that not only was Stephenson a member of the Aryan 

Brotherhood, Stephenson held gang-member meetings, called “church”, at his 

house.

Dirickson also testified that Stephenson was on several of what police 

consider “official rosters” for members of the Aryan Brotherhood. Furthermore, 

Dirickson stated that Stephenson was under an unrelated indictment in Palo 

Pinto County for engaging in organized criminal activity. He also said that he 

knew about Stephenson’s participation in the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas 

through confidential informants. We conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that 

the admission of the complained-of photographs did not contribute to the trial 

court’s assessment of Stephenson’s punishment and judgment. See Biera v. 

State, 391 S.W.3d 204, 211–12 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012, pet ref’d) (holding 

that any error in admission of handgun found in allegedly illegal search of 
5

defendant’s vehicle was harmless error because introduction of handgun was 

cumulative of other evidence of similar effect). Thus, we overrule Stephenson’s 

sole point.

III. CONCLUSION

Having overruled Stephenson’s sole point on appeal, we affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, GARDNER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 14, 2014