AFFIRM;andOpinionFiledJanuary31,2014.InThe Qnttrt

of AppcnI 3itrirt

Of cxas

at DatlasNo.05-12-01179-CRDERICKDEWAYNEEVANS,AppellantV.THESTATEOFTEXAS,AppelleeOnAppealfromthe363rdJudicialDistrictCourtDallasCounty,TexasTrialCourtCauseNo.F1001193W NUNC

PRO TUNC OPINIONBeforeJusticesBridges,Fillmore,andLewisOpinionbyJusticeLewisAjuryfoundappellantDerickEvansguiltyofengaginginorganizedcriminalactivity,basedonanunderlyingoffenseofgamblingpromotion,andassessedappellant’spunishmentatconfinementfortwoyears.Subsequently,thatsentencewassuspended;Evanswasplacedoncommunitysupervisionfortwoyearsandorderedtopayafineof$10,000.Appellantraisesnineissuesonappeal.Weaffirmthetrialcourt’sjudgment.BackgroundAppellantwaschargedbyindictmentwiththeoffenseofengaginginorganizedcriminalactivitybasedonaraffledrawingheorganizedtobenefithispoliticalcampaign.AppellantpleadednotguiltyandproceededtotrialbeforeajuryinNovember2011.Afterthe2011trialendedwithahungjury,asecondtrialbeforeajurywasheldinJune2012.Thesecondtrialendedwithajuryfindingappellantguiltyascharged.Appellantfiledtwomotionsfornewtrial,bothofwhichwereoverruledbythetrialjudge.AppellantalsosoughtawritofmandamusfromthisCourtregardinghissuspensionfromofficewhichwedenied.’Nowappellantappealsthetrialcour(sjudgment.SufficiencyoftheEvidenceInhisfirstissue,appellantarguestheevidencewaslegallyinsufficienttosupporthisconvictionforengaginginorganizedcriminalactivity.HearguestheStatefailedtoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthatappellant,knowinglyforgain,committedtheoffenseofgamblingpromotionorthattherewasagroupthatintendedtoworktogetherinacontinuingcourseofcriminalactivities.Appellantcontendstheevidencepresentedattrialisinsufficienttoprovehedistributedprizestopersonswhopaidconsiderationforachancetowinanythingofvalue.Wehavereviewedtheevidenceandconcludethatitissufficienttosupportappellant’sconviction.TheStatechargedappellantwithengaginginorganizedcriminalactivity,basedontheunderlyingoffenseofgamblingpromotion.Inpertinentpart,theindictmentchargedasfollows:EVANS,DERICKDEWAYNE***didthenandtherecommittheoffenseofgamblingpromotioninviolationofsection47.03oftheTexasPenalCode,to-wit:theDefendantdidthenandthere,forgain,knowinglyset-upandpromotealottery,towit:araffledrawingheldonoraboutDecember20,2008;andsaidDefendantdidthenandtherecommitsaidoffensewiththeintenttoestablish,maintain,andparticipateinacombination,andintheprofitsofacombination,whocollaboratedincarryingonsaidcriminalactivity.Whenreviewingthelegalsufficiencyoftheevidence,weapplywell-establishedstandards.SeeJacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,318—19(1979);Wisev.State.364S.W.3d900,SechiccDt’rb*DcwavncEvans.401S.W.3d92!(Tex.App—Dallas2013.orig.proceeding),903(Tex.Crim.App.2012).Weviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothejury’sverdictanddeterminewhetheranyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheelementsoftheoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.Jackson,443U.S.at319;Wise,364S.W.3dat903.Thetrieroffactisresponsibleforresolvingconflictsinthetestimony,weighingtheevidence,anddrawingreasonableinferencesfrombasicfactstoultimatefacts.Jackson,443U.S.at319.Apersoncommitstheoffenseofgamblingpromotion“ifheintentionallyorknowingly.forgain,setsuporpromotesanylotteryorsellsorofferstosellorknowinglypossessesfortransfer,ortransfersanycard,stub,ticket,check,orotherdevicedesignedtoserveasevidenceofparticipationinanylottery.”TEX.PENALCODEAss.§47.03(a)(5)(West2011).Apersoncommitstheoffenseofengaginginorganizedcriminalactivity“if,withtheintenttoestablish,maintain,orparticipateinacombinationorintheprofitsofacombinationorasamemberofacriminalstreetgang,thepersoncommitsorconspirestocommit”anygamblingoffensepunishableasaClassAmisdemeanor.”Id.at§71.02(a)(2)(WestSupp.2013).“Combination”meansthreeormorepersonswhocollaborateincarryingoncriminalactivities,iS.at§71.01(a)(West2011).“Conspirestocommit”meansthatapersonagreeswithoneormorepersonsthattheyoroneormoreofthemengageinconductthatwouldconstitutetheoffenseandthatpersonandoneormoreofthemperformanovertactinpursuanceoftheagreement.Id.at§71.01(b)(West2011).Anagreementconstitutingconspiringtocommitmayheinferredfromtheactsoftheparties.hi.GamblingPronioflonTherecordrevealsappellant’sCampaignFinanceReportforLheperiodJulyI,2007throughDecember31,2007listspoliticalcontributionsfromthesaleof“raffletickets”andpoliticalexpendituresfor“raffleprizes.”Multiplewitnessestestifiedthatwhileemployedunderappellantin2008,theywerecalledoutofamorningbriefingmeetingingroups;eachwasgiven—3—50raffleticketsandtoldtosellthem.LieutenantTraceyGulleyandSergeantKelvinHolderweredistributingticketsintheprecinctparkinglot,onereadingaloudtheticketnumbersanddistributingticketswhiletheotherwrotedowneachofficer’snamealongwiththeticketnumberstheyweregiven.Theticketscontainedthefollowinglanguage:“KeepCaring&CommittedLawEnforcementLeadershipWorkingforOurCommunity”SupportConstableDerickEvans1stPrizeAnXBOX360(ÔOG)ProSystem2ndPrizeASonyPSP3rdPrizeA(2G)MP3PlayerDrawingtobeheldSaturday,December20,2008(Neednotbepresenttowin)PaidforbyDedckEvansCampaignFund,JoeE.BagbyTreasurerS5.00Donation,ThankYouforYourSupport.Witnessestestifiedthatduringdetailonemorning,appellantreferencedthesellingof(heraffleticketsandexclaimed,“asmuchashehaddoneforthem,theyshouldbeabletodosomethingforhiminreturn.”Severalofficerstestifiedtheysoldtheticketstheycouldandthenboughttheremainderthemselves.TheofficersreportedtheyturnedintheirticketproceedstoGulleyinherprecinctofficeandshecheckedofftheirnamesfromthedistributionlist.Consistentwiththeofficers’testimony,appellant’sCampaignFinanceReportfortheperiodJuly1,2007throughDecember3112007listsseveralofficersnamesascontributorsshowingtheycontributed$250towardappellant’scampaign.OnDecember20,2008.theprecinctheldaChristmaspartyatwhichtimeappellantdrewthreeraffleticketstubsoutofabagandawardedthethreeprizeslistedonhisCampaignFinanceReportfortheperiodJulyI.2007throughDecember31,2007as“raffleprizes.”Thetestimonyconsistentlyrevealsticketswereonlygiventopeoplewhopaid$5.00foraticket.Also,thetestimonyconsistentlyrevealsthedrawingsfortheprizeswerepurelybychanceandtheonlyticketsstubsinthebagatthetimeofthedrawingswerestubsfromtheraffleticketssold.-4-Appellant’scontentionthattheevidenceisinsufficienttosupporthisconvictioniswithoutmerit.Thesufficiencyoftheevidencemustbereviewedinthelightmostfavorabletothedeterminationmadebythetinderoffact.Jackson,1’3U.S.at319;Wise,364S.W.3dat903;seea/soSmithi’.State,658S.W.2d172,173(Tex.Crim.App.1983).Theevidenceinthiscasewaslegallysufficientforthejurytoinferthatappellantintentionallyorknowinglyforgain,setuporpromotedalottery;thatthepurposeandfunctionofthelotterywastoinducepeopletoexchangemoneyforachancetoentertheraffleandwinoneofthreeprizeslistedontheraffletickets;andthatthepurposeofexchangingmoneyfortheticketwastoentertheraffle.SeeTEX.PENALCODEANN.47.03(a)(5).OrganizeciCriniinalActn’ztvTherecordalsosupportsthejury’sfindingthatappellantpossessedtheintenttoestablish,maintain,orparticipateinacombinationorintheprofitsofacombinationinconnectionwiththegamblingoffenseforwhichhewaconvicted.SeeTEx.PENALCODEANN.§71.02.Specifically,appellanttestifiedhehassoldraffleticketstofundhiselectioncampaignssince2001.Headmittedheobtainedtheticketshimselfandlefttheminhisvehicle.HetestifiedhetoldtheChiefDeputytheticketswereinhisvehicleanditwasunlocked,thefollowingdaytheticketswerenolongerinhisvehicle,andhedidnotknowhowortowhomtheyweredistributed.OfficerstestifiedGulleyandHolderdistributedtheticketsandmadealistofwhichofficersreceivedandsoldthetickets.OfficerCooleytestifiedhelatersawappellanttakethesamelistoutofhisdeskdrawertoverifyCooleyhadsoldhisappropriatedticketswhenapprovingarequestforworkinganofMutyjob.Gulleygatheredtheticketproceedsandstubsfromtheofficers.AppellantadmittedhewasgiventheticketsalesproceedsbyGulleyandappellantdepositedthoseproceedsintohisbankaccounttobenefithiscampaign.Appellantadmits,andtheofficerstestified,thatvariouspeopledistributedand/orsoldraffleticketswiththepurposeofraising—5—fundsforappellant’spoliticalcampaign.Andfinally,afterreceivingtheproceedsandticketstubs,appellantconductedaraffle,drewtheticketstubsfromabag,andawardedprizestothedrawnticketholders.Wehavereviewedtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothedeterminationmadebythefinderoffact.SeeJaL*son,443U.S.at319;Wise,364S.W.3dat903;seealsoSmith,658S.W.2dat173.Theevidenceinthiscasewaslegallysufficientforthejurytoinferthatappellantpossessedtheintenttoestablish,maintain,orparticipateinacombinationorintheprofitsofacombination;thatappellantpurchasedtheraffleticketsandprizeswiththeintentthatotherofficerswoulddistributeandselltheraffletickets;thattheofficers’purposeindistributingandsellingtheticketswastofacilitatearafflegeneratingproceedstobenefitappellant’spoliticalcampaign;andthatappellantreceivedanddepositedtheproceedsfromtheofficersticketsalesasreportedonhisCampaignFinanceReportfortheperiodJuly1,2007throughDecember31,2007.Thisevidencesupportsthejury’sfindingthatappellantpossessedtheintenttoestablish,maintain,orparticipatewithotherofficersinthefurtheranceofthegamblingoffenseforwhichhewasconvicted.SeeTEX.PENALCODEANN.§71.02;seealsoNguyenv.State,1S.W.3d694,697(Tex.Crim.App.1999).Appellant’sfirstissueisoverruled.ExclusionofEvidenceInhissecondthroughfifthissues,appellantarguesevidence.Hespecificallycomplainsthatthetrialcourterredwhetherappellantknowinglyparicipatedinthepromotionofdefenseofmistakeoffact,relevanttothedefenseofmistakeseveraloftheState’switnesses.thetrialcourterredbyexcludingbyexcludingevidence:relevanttoanillegallottery,relevanttotheoflaw,andofbiasormotiveof—6—Wereviewatrialcourt’sdecisiontoadmitevidenceunderanabuseofdiscretionstandard.Davisv.State,329S.W.3d798.803(Tex.Crim.App.2010).Thetrialcourtabusesitsdiscretiononlywhenthedecisionlies“outsidethezoneofreasonabledisagreement.”Id.A.EvidenceofkizowinglvparticipatingiiitheptvttiotioizofanillegallotteryAppellant’ssecondissuecontendsthetrialcourterredbyexcludingrelevantevidencethatotherconstablesusedthesamefundraisingtechniquesasappellant.Hecomplainshisraffle,likerafflesheldbyotherconstables,wasan“entirelylegitimateactivity.”Appellantarguesitwasrelevantforthejurytoknowthatappellantlearnedthisfundraisingtechniquewhenhewasadeputyconstableandthatotherconstablesusedthissametechniquetoraisecampaignfunds.Wehavealreadyestablishedtheevidencewassufficienttosupportthejury’sverdictthatappellantwasguiltyofengaginginorganizedcriminalactivitybasedonanunderlyingoffenseofgamblingpromotion.Whetherornototherconstables’actionssatisfiedtheelementsofpromotionofanillegallotteryisirrelevanttowhetherornotappellant’sactionssatisfiedthoseelements.SeeCampbellv.State,502S.W.2d736,737(Tex.Crim.App.1973)(“Thefactthatotherpersonsmayhaveviolatedthelawisnoexcuseorjustificationforappellant’sviolation.”(citingHk*n,anv.State141S.W.973,974(Tex.Crim.App.1911)).Therefore,weconcludeitwasnotanabuseofdiscretionforthetrialcourttodeterminethat“where”appellantlearnedthisfundraisingtechniqueandwhoelsemightbeusingthesametechniquewasirrelevant.Appellant’ssecondissueisoverruled.B.Evidencerelevantto,ni.vtake0/factandmistakeoflawAppellant’sthirdandfourthissuescontendthetrialcourterredbyexcludingevidencethatotherconstablesusedthesamefundraisingtechniquesasappellantbecauseitwasrelevanttothedefensesofmistakeoffactandmistakeoflaw;andbyexcludingevidenceofaTexasEthicsCommissionorder,hewasdeprivedoftheopportunitytoraisethemistakeoflaw—7—defense.Specifically,appellantwantedtointroduceaTexasEthicsCommissionorderinwhichtheCommissionrecognizedthatappellant’sopponentviolatedthelawbynotreportingallcontributionsfromafundraisingraffle.AppellantcontendstherafflewassanctionedbytheCommissionbecausetheorderfailedtostatetherafflewasillegal.Itisadefensetoprosecutionthattheactorthroughmistakeformedareasonablebeliefaboutamatteroffactifhismistakenbeliefnegatedthekindofculpabilityrequiredforcommissionoftheoffense.TEX.PENALCODEANN.8.02(West2011).Itisalsoanaffirmativedefensetoprosecutionthattheactorreasonablybelievedtheconductchargeddidnotconstituteacrimeandthatheactedinreasonablerelianceuponanofficialstatementofthelawcontainedinawrittenorderorgrantofpermissionbyanadministrativeagencychargedbylawwithresponsibilityforinterpretingthelawinquestion.14.at§8.03(West2011).Appellantarguestheexcludedevidencewouldallowthejurytodecidewhetherappellantpossessedtherequiredmentalstatefortheoffense,“i.e.,whetherConstableEvansknowingly,forgain,promotedanillegallottery.”However,appellantwaschargedbyanindictmentfollowingthelanguageofthestatuteandtheStatewasrequiredtoproveappellant,forgain.knowingLyset-upandpromotedtheraffle;therewasnorequirementtoproveappelLantknewhisactionswereillegal.Thefactsrelevanttoappellant’sconvictionare:heobtainedtheraffletickets,hepurchasedprizestobeawarded,heknewtheraffleticketsweresoldforgain,hetookthemoneyfromtheticketsalesanddepositeditinhiscampaignbankaccount,adrawingwasheldwherehepickedaticketstubbychance,andtheownerofthewinningticketstubwasentitledtoaprize.Theexcludedfactsofwhichappellantcomplainsarefactsaboutwhatotherconstablesallegedlyhavedone,notfactsaboutappellant’sactions.“Thatothershadalsoviolatedthelawwouldbenoexcuseorjustification.”Hickman,141S.W.at974.Appellant—8—onlyclaimsthathedidnotknowthattheactshewascommittingwereanoffense:hecommittedtheveryactsheintendedtocommit.“Nomistakeoflawexcusesanyone.”Id.AppellanturgesthisCourttofindtheTexasEthicsCommissionhasresponsibilityforinterpretingthepenalcode—thelawunderwhichappellantwascharged.AppellantprovidesthisCourtwiththestatuteenablingtheTexasEthicsCommissiontoadministerandenforcecampaignfinancelaws.SeeThX.GOVTCODEANN.§571.061(West2012).However,appellantfailstoprovidethisCourtwithanycaselaworstatuteenablingtheTexasEthicsCommissiontointerprettheTexasPenalCode,andwefailtofindsuchgrantofauthority.Appellant’sthirdandfourthissuesareoverruled.C.EvidenceofbiasormotiveofwitnessesAppellant’sfifthissuecontendsthetrialcourterredbyexcludingevidenceattackingthecredibilityoftheStale’switnesses.RonaldLinthicum,NorvisHarmon,andAndrewHarris.Specifically,appellantclaimseachofthesethreewitnessesfelthehadbeentreatedunfairlybyappellantandwerethereforebiasedandhadmotivetoputappellantintheworstpossiblelightwiththejury.Atrialcourt’sdecisiontoexcludeevidencewillbeupheldifitiswithinthezoneofreasonabledisagreement.Davis,329S.W.3dat803.Errormaynotbepredicateduponarulingwhichexcludesevidenceunlessasubstantialrightofthepartyisaffected.TEX.R.EvID.103(a).Apartyshouldbeallowedtoshowallfactstendingtodemonstratebias,interest,prejudice,oranyothermotive,mentalstate,orstatusofthewitnessthat,fairlyconsideredandconstrued,mightevenremotelytendtoaffectthewitness’scredibility.Hinojosav.Suite,788S.W.2d594.600(Tex.App.—CorpusChristi1990,pet.ref’d).However,thescopeofappropriatecrossexaminationisnotunlimited.Carrollv.State,916S.W.2d494,498(Tex.Crim.App.1996).Cross-examinationmaybelimitedtopreventharassment,prejudice,confusionoftheissues,—9—harmtothewitness,andrepetitiveormarginallyrelevantinterrogation.Delawarev.VanArsdall,475U.S.673,679(1986);Carroll,916S.W.2dat498.Here,appellantcomplainsthetrialcourtexcludedhistoricalevidenceofjob-relatedproblemsforRonaldLinthicum,NorvisHarmon,andAndrewHarris.Appellantwastryingtoshowtheirbiasandmotivefortestifyingagainsthim.ThejuryheardLinthicumtestifyhehadworkedfortheConstable’sofficefornineteenyearsandwasterminatedwhileworkingforappellant.Linthicumwasintheprocessofbeingterminatedwhenhefliedacomplaintagainstappellantwhichreportedfeelingcoercedtoselltheraffletickets.Linthicumtestifiedhehadreceivedanadministrativewarningandheknewhisjobwasinjeopardywhenhemadethecomplaintofcoercionagainstappellant.Linthicum’sreportalsocomplainedthathewastreatedunfairlywhenhewasdeniedtheopportunitytoworkpan-timejobswhileotherconstableswereallowedthesameopportunitieshewasdenied.ThejuryheardAndrew’Harristestifyhehadbeendisciplinedbyappellantandwasnotallowedtoworkoff-dutyjobsasaresult.Harristestifiedhehadameetingwithappellantandrequestedthathisdisciplineherescinded;appellantrefusedtorescindthedisciplineandHarriswasupset.Harrisfurthertestifiedhewasinvolvedwithagroupofothersthatfiledacivilsuitagainstappellantthatwaspendingatthetimeoftrial.ThecivilsuitallegedHarrishadbeenforcedtoselltothepublicorpersonallypurchaseraffleticketsforappellantscampaign.HarrisfliedaformalcomplaintwiththeDallasCountyDistrictAttorneyregardingtheforcedsellingofraffleticketsforappellant’selectioncampaignaswellusotherissuesHarriswasexperiencing.Harristestifiedhiscomplainttothedistrictattorneywasmadeoneweekl,eforehewasterminatedandappellantcontendsthecomplaintwasfaxedtothedistrictattorney’sofficethedayafterHarriswasterminated.—10—Also,thejuryheardNorvisHarmontestifyheworkedintheConstable’sofficeuntilhewasterminatedin2011.Harmontestifiedhewasaskedbyappellanttosellraffletickets.Oncrossexamination,HarmonadmittedhisaffidavitreportingthesellingofraffleticketsdidnotincludeareportofhismeetingwithappellantdirectlyaskingHarmontosellthetickets.HarmontestifiedappellantdeniedHarmon’srequesttoworkoff-dutyjobswhichmadehimunhappy.TheStateintroducedseveraloff-dutyrequestsmadebyHarmonwhichappellanthadapproved.Harmontestifiedhewasalsoinvolvedwiththecivilsuitagainstappellantandconsideredhimselfawhistleblowerforreportingappellanttotheauthorities.Thejurywasawarethatallthreewitnesses,RonaldLinthicum,NorvisHarmon,andAndrewHarris,hadpossiblemotivestomakefalseaccusationsagainstappellant.Thejuryhadampleopportunitytojudgethecredibilityandweighthetestimonyofeachwitness.Therecordalsocontainsdocumentaryevidenceshowingpossiblebasesfornegativefeelingsofthesethreewitnessestowardtheappellant.Further,theStatebroughtforthfourotherofficerswhoalltestifiedtothesamefactsasthethreeofficersthatappellantiscomplainingabout;theywereallgiven,andfeltcoercedtosell,raffleticketsinsupportofappellant’scampaign.Wedonotfinditanabuseofdiscretionforthetrialcourttoexcludeevidencetendingtobeneedlesscumulativeevidence,riskingconfusionoftheissues,ormisleadingthejury.SeeTEX.R.EvID.403.Appellant’sfifthissueisoverruled.ImproperArgumentInhissixthissue,appellantarguesthetrialcourterredinrefusingtoinstructthejurytodisregardastatementmadebytheStateduringclosingargument.TheStaterespondsthattheargumentwaspermissiblebecauseitwasareasonabledeductionandinferencefromtheevidence.Duringtheguilt/innocencephaseofthetrial,theStateargued:SomethingelsethatIthinkisveryinterestingabouthischaracter.Everythinghedid,almostwithexceptionofafewchecksthattheyputintoevidence,everything—Il—isincash.Andthenwehavealltheseexpenses.Theydon’taddup.Whydotheydoitincash?There’sgottobeareason,andthereasonis,sotheycansiphonsomeofitoff.Appellant’scounselobjectedthattheState’sargumentwasamisstatementoftheevidenceandnotareasonabledeductionfromtheevidence;thetrialcourtoverruledtheobjection.Wereviewatrialcourt’srulingonanobjectiontoajuryargumentforanabuseofdiscretion.SeeMontgomeryi’.State,198S.W.3d67,95(Tex.App.—FortWorth2006,pet.refd).Permissiblejuryargumentgenerallyfallsintooneoffourareas:(I)summationoftheevidence,(2)reasonabledeductionsdrawnfromtheevidence,(3)responsestoargumentofopposingcounsel,and(4)pleasforlawenforcement.Browni’.Stare270S.W.3d564,570(Tex.Crim.App.2008).TheStatemaydrawreasonableinferencesFromtheevidenceandisaffordedwidelatitudeinitsjuryargumentsolongastheargumentissupportedbytheevidence,legitimate,fair,andofferedingoodfaith.Idat572.Here,theStateintroducedtestimonybyseveralwitnessessupportingthepropositionthatallraffleticketproceedswereexpectedtobereturnedincash.Duringhisowntestimony,appellantreportedthathekeptsomecashtousewhenheneededtopurchasesomething,orforpayinga“Di.”orthecatererforaChristmasparty.Wecannotconcludethetrialcourterredinoverrulingappellant’sobjectiontotheState’sclosingargumentbecausetheStatemayargueallreasonableinferencesfromthefactsinevidence,andanyerrorfromarguingfactsoutsideoftherecordisnotreversibleunless,inlightoftherecordasawhole,theargumentisextremeormanifestlyimproper.SeekLUnderthesecircumstances,weconcludetheprosecutor’sargumentinthiscasewasareasonableinferencefromtheevidence.SeeWesbmoki’.Stare,29S.W.3d103,115(Tex.Crim.App.2000).Evenifwefoundthejuryargumentwasimproperandthetrialcourtdiderrinoverrulingappellant’sobjections,ourinquirywouldnotend.“Errorexistswhenfactsnotsupportedbythe—12—recordareinterjected;however,sucherrorisnotreversibleunless,inlightoftherecordasawhole,theargumentisextremeormanifestlyimproper,violativeofamandatorystatuteorinjectsnewfacts,harmfultotheaccused,intothetrial.”Al/ridgei’.State,762S.W.2d146,155(Tex.Crim.App.1988).Thetestforreversibleerrorinjuryargumentiswhetherthereisareasonablepossibilitythattheargumentcomplainedofmighthavecontributedtotheconvictionorthepunishmentassessed.Id.AppellanttestifiedthathewasgiventhecampaignmoneybyGulley.Gulleyhadreceivedthemoneyfromtheotherdeputieswhohadsoldraffletickets.Appellanttestifiedhetookthemoneytothebankanddepositeditintohiscampaignaccount.Officerstestifiedtheyreceivedandturned-incashraffleticketproceeds.Therecordcontainsappellant’sCampaignFinanceReportfortheperiodJuly1,2007throughDecember31,2007whichshowscontributionsreceivedaswellasexpendituresmadeforaraffle.Appellanttestifiedhepaidsomecampaignexpenseswithcash.Inlightoftherecordasawhole,weconcludetheState’sargumentwasareasonabledeductioninlightofalltheevidencepresented,wasnotextremeormanifestlyimproper,andwasnotharmfultoappellant.SeeAllridge,762S.W.2dat156.Appellant’ssixthissueisoverruled.MotiontoQuashInhisseventhissue,appellantarguesthetrialcourterredbydenyingamotiontoquashtheindictmentbecausetheindictmentfailedtoproperlyallegeanecessaryculpablementalstate.Specifically,appellantarguestheindictmentrailstotrackthegamblingpromotionstatutebyplacingtherequiredculpablementalstateof“knowingly”after“forgain”ratherthanbefore“brgain.’TheStaterespondsthatanyerrorintheindictmentiswaivedandevenifitwerepreserved,theindictmentproperlystatedtheculpablementalstate.—I3—TheStaterirstcontendsappellanthaswaivedthisclaimbecausehefailedtoargueitatthepre-trialhearingdevotedtothemotiontoquash.Thereporter’srecordrevealsthatappellant’scounseldidnotspecificallyargueabouttheplacementofthewordknowinglyintheindictmentatthehearingofthemotiontoquash.However,appellant’scounseldidstate,“YourHonor,fortherecord,wewouldliketore-urgeourMotiontoQuashthatwasheardbefore,asitrelatestotheindictment.”Andtheclerk’srecordrevealstheAmendedMotiontoQuashandExceptiontoSubstanceoftheIndictmentcontainstheexactargumentappellantbringsbeforeusonappeal.Consequently,weconcludeappellanthaspreservedhisargumentforthisappeal.SeeTEX.R.App.P.33.l(a)(l);Millerv.State,333S.W.3d352,355-56(Tex.App.—FortWorth,2010,pet.ref’d).Wereviewdenovoatrialcourt’sdenialofamotiontoquashanindictment.Lawrencei’.State,240S.W.3d912.915(Tex.Crim.App.2007).Indictmentsmaysufferfromadefectofsubstanceoradefectofform.Adefectofsubstanceoccurswhentheindictmentdoesnotappeartochargeanoffense,whenitappearsonthefaceoftheindictmentthatitis“barredbyalapseoftimeorthattheoffensewascommittedafterthefindingoftheindictment,”when“itcontainsmatterwhichisalegaldefenseorbartotheprosecution,”oriftheindictmentshowsonitsfacethatthetrialcourtlacksjurisdiction.TEx.CODECRIM.PROC.ANN.art.27.08(West2006).Todeterminewhetherthedefendanthadadequatenoticetopreparehisdefense,wemustfirstdeterminewhetherthecharginginstrumentfailedtoprovidesomerequisiteitemof“notice.”Olurehiv.State,870S.W.2d58,6!(Tex.Crim.App.1994).Acharginginstrumentwhichtracksthelanguageofacriminalstatutepossessessufficientspecificitytoprovideanaccusedwithnoticeofachargedoffense.Statev.Ethnond,933S.W.2d120,128(Tex.Crim.App.1996).Anindictmentshouldcontaineverythingwhichisnecessarytobeproved.TEx.CODECRIM.PROC.ANN.art.21.03(West2009).Amotiontoquashshouldonlybegrantedwhenthelanguage—14—describingtheaccused’sconductissovagueorindefinitethatitfailstogivetheaccusedadequatenoticeoftheactsheallegedlycommitted.DeVaiighnv.Stare,749S.W.2d62,67(Tex.Crim.App.1988).Whenamotiontoquashacharginginstrumentisoverruled,adefendantsuffersnoharmunlesshedidnot,infact,receivenoticeoftheState’stheoryagainstwhichhewouldhavetodefend.Statev.Muff,154S.W.3d599,601.603(Tex.Crim.App.2004);seeti/soTEX.CODECRIM.PROC.ANN.art.21.19(West2009).Appellantcomplainsthatthetrialcourterredbyfailingtogranthismotiontoquashbecausetheindictmentfailedtochargethatappellantdid“knowingly,forgain,promotealottery”byplacingtherequiredculpablementalstateofknowinglyafter“forgain”ratherthanbefore“forgain.”Wedisagree.Theindictmentwassufficientlyspecificbystatingtheconductforwhichhewasbeingchargedas“theDefendantdidthenandthere,forgain,knowinglyset-upandpromotealottery,towit:araffledrawingheldonoraboutDecember20.2008.”Itisclearfromtheindictmentthatthe“knowingly”mentalstaterequiredbytheapplicablestatute,thatwasanecessaryelement,wasincludedinthecharge.SeeOliverv.State.692S.W.2d712,714(Tex.Crim.App.1985)(“[W]herethereisnotamaterialdifferencebetweenthelanguageofthestatuteandthelanguageoftheindictment,anindictmentwhichallegesalloftherequisiteelementsoftheparticularoffenseinquestionwillnotbefoundtobedeficientsimplybecauseitfailstopreciselytrackthelanguageofthestatute.”)(emphasisinoriginal).Weconcludetherewasnomaterialvariancebetweentheindictmentandthestatute.Furthermore,evenifthereweresomeerrorintheindictment,appellantwouldsufferharmonlyifhedidnot,infact,receivenoticeoftheState’stheoryagainstwhichhewouldhavetodefend.Smithv.State,297S.W.3d260,267(Tex.Crim.App.2009):seealsoTEX.CODECRIM.PROC.ANN.art.21.19(Anindictmentshallnotbeheldinsufficient,norshallthetrial.judgmentorotherproceedingsthereonbeaffected,byreasonofanydefectofformwhichdoes—IS—notprejudicethesubstantialrightsofthedefendant.).Appellant’ssubstantialrightswerenotharmedbecausetherecordinthiscaseclearlyshowsthatappellanthadactualnoticeofthechargesonwhichtheStatewasbasingitsallegations:engaginginorganizedcriminalactivity,basedonanunderlyingoffenseofgamblingpromotion.Theindictmentgaveappellantadequatenoticeoftheactsheallegedlycommittedfromwhichhecouldpreparehisdefense.SeeSmith,297S.W.3dat267.Appellant’sseventhissueisoverruled.JuryChargeErrorInhiseighthissue,appellantarguesthetrialcourterredbysubmittinganegregiouslyharmfuljurychargebecausetheapplicationparagraphofthechargedidnotrequirethejurytofindanecessaryculpablementalstate.TheStaterespondsthatthejurychargeproperlystatedtheculpablementalstare.Whenreviewingthejurycharge,wemustfirstdeterminewhethererrorexists.Ahnwzzav.Stare,686S.W.2d157,172(Tex.Crim.App.1984).Ifwefinderror,wemustthendeterminewhethertheerrorcausedsufficientharmtorequirereversal.Hutchv.Stare,922S.W.2d166,171(Tex.Crim.App.1996):Alnzanza,686S.W.2dat171.Whenatimelyobjectionismadeattrial,reversalisrequirediftheaccusedcanclaim“someharm.”Ahnan:a.686S.W.2dat171.Ifnoproperobjectionwasmadeattrial,theaccusedmustclaimthattheerrorwasfundamental,andhewillobtainareversalonlyiftheerrorissoegregiousandcreatedsuchharmthathe“hasnothadafairandimpartialtrial.”Id.Becauseappellantfailedtoobjecttothecharge,hemustdemonstratehesufferedactualegregiousharm;thatis,theerrormustbesoharmfulthatitaffectedtheverybasisofthecase,deprivedhimofavaluableright,orvitallyaffectedadefensivetheory.SeeWarnerv.Stare,245S.W.3d458,461-62(Tex.Crim.App.2008).—16—Apersonistobetriedonlyonthecrimesallegedintheindictment.Castillov.Stare,7S.W.3d253,258(Tex.App.—Austin1999,pet.reEd).Thechargeofwhichappellantcomplainsbeginsbytrackingthelanguageofthestatuteandinstructed:ApersoncommitsaClassAmisdemeanoroffenseofgamblingpromotionifheknowhzglv,forgait?,setsuporpromotesanylottery.(emphasisadded).Theapplicationparagraphofthechargealsoinstructed:Now,ifyoufindfromtheevidencebeyondareasonabledoubtthatonoraboutthe1stdayofDecember.A.D.,2008.inDallasCounty,Texas,thedefendant,DerickDewayneEvans,didunlawfullythenandtherecommittheoffenseofgamblingpromotioninviolationofsection47.03oftheTexasPenalCode,to-wit:theDefendantdidthenandthere,frirgain,knowinglysetuporpromotealottery,to-wit:araffledrawingheldonoraboutDecember20,2008,andsaidDefendantdidthenandtherecommitsaidoffensewiththeintenttoestablish,maintain,orparticipateinacombination,andintheprofitsofacombinationwhocollaboratedincarryingonsaidcriminalactivity,thenyouwillfindthedefendantguiltyofEngaginginOrganizedCriminalActivity,aschargedintheindictment.(emphasisadded).Appellantcomplainsthejurywaserroneouslytoldappellant“wasguiltyifheknowinglyorganizedtheraffle”andshouldhavebeentoldappellant“wasguiltyifheknowingly,forgain,organizedtheraffle.”Appellantarguesthejurywasnotrequiredtofindallthenecessaryelementsoftheoffenseofgamblingpromotionbecausethewords“forgain”wereplacedbefore“knowingly’intheindictmentandintheapplicationparagraphofthejurycharge.Wedisagree;wedonotviewthechallengedlanguageinisolation,butratherincontextoftheentiretyofthecourt’scharge.Thelanguage“forgain”wasnotomittedfromtheindictmentorthejurycharge.SeeOliveri’.State,692S.W.2d712,714(Tex.Crim.App.1985)(“Thuswherethereisnotamaterialdifferencebetweenthelanguageofthestatuteandthelanguageoftheindictment,anindictmentwhichallegesalloftherequisiteelementsoftheparticularoffenseinquestionwillnotbefoundtobedeficientsimplybecauseitfailstopreciselytrackthelanguageofthestatute.Furthermore,inconstruingindictmentsthecontextandsubjectmatterinwhichthewordsareemployedshouldbetakenintoconsideration.”)Weconcludethereisnomaterialdifference—17—betweenthestatuteandtheindictment;theapplicationparagraphinthejurychargetrackedthelanguageintheindictment.SeeId.Further,wefindnothingintherecordrevealinganycontestregardingwhetherappellantheldtheraffledrawing“forgain.”Appellanteventestifiedthe“profits”wenttotheDerickEvanscampaign.Also,thedefinitionssectionofthejurychargeLrackedthelanguageofthestatute.Consequently,weconcludeappellantfailedtosufferegregiousharmfromthelanguageusedinthejurycharge.Appellant’seighthissueisoverruled.SuspensionfromOfficeAppellant’sninthissuecontendsthetrialcourterredbysuspendingappellantfromoffice.TheStaterespondsthetrialcourtproperlyexerciseditsdiscretionpursuanttothelocalgovernmentcode.Theconstitutionprovides,“Lawsshallbemadetoexcludefromofficepersonswhohavebeenconvictedofbribery.perjury.forgery,orotherhighcrimes.”TEX.C0NST.art.XVI,2.LocalGovernmentCodeChapter87governstheremovalorsuspensionofcertaingovernmentofficialsfromoffice.SeeTEX.Loc.Gov’TCODEANN.§87.00l—.043(West2008&Supp.2013).Followingthejury’sguiltyverdict,thetrialcourtremovedappellantfrompublicofficepursuanttosections87.031and87.032.Section87.031provides:(a)Theconvictionofacountyofficerbyapetitjuryforanyfelonyorforamisdemeanorinvolvingofficialmisconductoperatesasanimmediateremovalfromofficeofthatofficer.(b)Thecourtrenderingjudgmentinsuchacaseshallincludeanorderremovingtheofficerinthejudgment.TEX.Loc.GOVTCODEANN.§87.031(West2008).Whenappellantfiledhisnoticeofappeal,thetrialcourtheldasuspensionhearingandfounditwasinthepublicinteresttosuspendappellantfromofficepursuanttosection87.032whichprovides:Iftheofficerappealsthejudgment,theappealsupersedestheorderofremovalunlessthecourtthatrendersthejudgmentfindsthatitisinthepublicinteresttosuspendtheofficerpendingtheappeal.Ifthecourtfindsthatthepublicinterest—I8—requiressuspension,thecourtshallsuspendtheofficerasprovidedbythischapter.TEX.Loc.GOVTCODEANN.§87.032(WestSupp.2013).AppellantarguestheproceduresofChapter87,tinderwhichhewasremovedfromoffice,arebroaderthantheconstitutionalprovisiononwhichtheproceduresarebasedbecauseallfeloniesarenot“highcrimes”asdescribedinarticleXVIoftheTexasConstitution.SeeTEX.CONST.art.XVI,§2;TEx.Loc.GovtCODEANN.§87.031—32.TheTexasSupremeCourthasaddressedarelatedissueregardingsection87.031inlightofarticleXVI,section2.SeegenerallyInreBazan,251S.W.3d39,43—45(Tex.2008)(discussingthelegislativehistoryofchapter87).InBazan,theCourtstates:Thisconstitutionalprovisionstatesthat:“Law’sshallbemadetoexcludefromoffice...[persons]whohavebeenorshallhereafterbeconvictedofbribery,perjury,forgery,orotherhighcrimes.”TEX.CONST.art.XVI,§2.Anindividualconvictedofafelonyisthusineligibletoholdpublicofficewhethertheconvictioncomesbeforeoraftertheindividual’selectiontooffice.SeeleL:TEX.ELEC.CODE§141.001(4)(individualconvictedofafelonyineligibletoholdpublicoffice);TEX.LOCALGovtCODE§87.031(felonyconvictionoperatesasanimmediateremovalfromoffice);Op.Tex.Att’yGen.No.H—20(1973)(“Theterm‘otherhighcrimes’includesanyoffenseofthesamedegreeorgradeasthosespecificallyenumerated,namelyfelonies.”).Bacan,251S.W.3dat41—42.Appellantcontendsbecausehisconvictionofthefelonyoffenseofengaginginorganizedcriminalactivityisbasedontheunderlyingmisdemeanoroffenseofgamblingpromotion,alotteryconductedforthepurposeofraisingcampaignfundsisnotahighcrimeasintendedintheconstitution.Further,appellantarguesthatthestatuteconflictswiththeconstitutionbecausethestatuteisbroaderthantheconstitutionandthenarrowreadingoftheconstitutionmustprevail.Wedisagree.Again,theconstitutionprovides,“Lawsshallbemadetoexcludefromofficepersonswhohavebeenconvictedofbribery,perjury,forgery,orotherhighcrimes.”TEx.—19—CONST.art.XVI,§2.WedonotinterpretthisconstitutionalprovisionasalimitationonmoreexpansiveregulationbytheLegislature.Theconstitutionalcommentaryprovides:ThissectionisaverbatimcopyofArt.7,§4oftheConstitutionof1845.Theconstitutionalconventionof1845recognizedthatTexaswasalargearea,andmanysectionsthereofwererelativelylawless.Furthermore,temptationswereenormous,andthepersonstemptedoftenhadnosocialpositiontoforfeit,hencetheconditionswerenotthemostfavorabletovirtue.Itwasadmittedthatalthoughitwasimpossibletomakemenmoralbystatute,yetitwaspossibletoarmgoodcitizenswithweaponswhichwouldimprovetheirchancesintheunceasingconflictwiththevariousformsinwhichpoliticaldishonestyappeared.Thereforethissectionwasplacedinthefirststateconstitutionandcarriedoverinallsuccessivestateconstitutions.TEx.CONST.art.XVI,§2interp.commentary(West1993).ThecommentaryprovidesthepurposeofthisconstitutionalprovisionasadirectivetotheLegislaturetoenactspecificlaws;itsaysnothingaboutlimitingthepoweroftheLegislature.Again,astheSupremeCourthasstated,“Theterm‘otherhighcrimes’includesanyoffenseofthesamedegreeorgradeasthosespecificallyenumerated,namelyfelonies.”Bazan,251S.W.3dat41—42.AfterreviewingtheTexasConstitution,localgovernmentcode,andSupremeCourt’sanalysis,weconcludesection87.032isnotunconstitutionalasappliedtoappellant’ssuspensionfromofficeafterhisfelonyconvictionforengaginginorganizedcriminalactivity.SeeTEX.CONST.art.XVI,§2;TEx.LOCALGovTCODEANN.§87.031;seealsoBazan,251S.W.3dat445;Lipseouthv.Randall,985S.W.2d601,610,n.10(Tex.App.—FortWorth,1999,pet.dism’d)(“InanalogousTexascasesinvolvingcountyofficersconvictedofcrimes,automaticforfeitureunderstatutependingappealhasbeenupheld.”)(citationsomitted).Welchv.State,880S.W.2d79,82(Tex.App.—Tyler1994,writdenied)(holdingWelchwasproperlybarredfromofficeafterbeingconvictedofafelonybecausethelegislature’spowertopunishrepeateddrivingwhileintoxicatedasafelonyisunquestioned).Appellant’sninthissueisoverruled.—20—ConclusionHavingresolvedappellant’snineissuesagainsthim,weaffirmthetrialcourt’sjudgment./DavidLewis/DAVIDLEWISJUSTICEDoNotPublishTEX.R.App.P.47121l79NF.U05—2I—