C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

J ESSE AROCHA, Ap pe lla nt,

v. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee

. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 01 08 -C R

Appea l from 399th District Court of B exar County , Texas (TC # 2006CR0870A)

O P I N I O N J esse Ar ocha a

ppeals his c onviction of

burg lary of a ha bitation. A jury

found him g uilty

and the trial cour

t assessed punishment at a fine of $1,500 and i mprisonment for six y ear s but suspended the se nt e nc e and

pla c e d App e lla

nt o n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on fo r s ix y e ars . T he Te xas S up re me Court transfe rre d the appeal t o this Court by docket equalization order enter ed on April 2, 2007. For the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e a ff

ir m. F ACTUAL SUMMA RY On Novembe r 7, 2005, Audrie Her rer a took her

two y oung est children to sc hool at approximately

6:45 a.m. and then dr opped her husband off at work at 7 a.m. Her rer a’s oldest son, twelve- y ear -old J ere my , did not join t hem bec ause he walked to sc hool. After dr opping of f the children, H err era

went to pay her electric bill and returned home around 8 a.m. Nobody was at her house whe n she re turned and ther e we re no ve hicles in the drivew ay . After enter ing the house, Her rer a noticed that her DVD play er was missing. She went into her be droom and notice d that the closet door a

nd draw ers were open as if someone had been looking for something. Upon see ing that some DVDs we re a lso missing, s he thought J ere my might have t aken the play er and DVDs or loa nedthem to one of his friends without asking

. Her rer a im mediately drove to J ere my ’s s chool to speak with him ab o u t it before classes star ted. B ut J ere my

said he did not know what she was talking about and they went toge ther back to the house. Her rer a pulled onto their stre et about 8:15 a.m. and noticed a gr ay vehicle in front of her home fa cing the wrongdirec tion. A darke r Hispanic ma le was in the driver’ s seat and a

lighter Hispanic male was in the rea r passeng er seat. Both of the m were
wea ring white tee shirts. He rre ra a lso saw an Afric an-A merica n male running from her home toward the g ray c ar an d c ar

r yin g s o me th in g u n d e r h is ar m. H e s li d o v e r th e tr

u n k an d g o t in to th e rig ht front passe ng er se at. Her rer a “f loored it” a

nd attempted to block the g ray vehicle f rom exit ing the cul-de -sac , but she was g oing too f ast and struc k the rig ht front quar ter pa nel o f t h e o t her c ar, eff ectively pinning it ag ainst the curb. The im pact also flattene d the right front ti re of the g ray car . At trial, Her

rer a made a positive in-cour t identification of Appe llant as t he driver. She had seen the fa c e s o f t he thr e e me n w ho we re sh oc ke d sh e ha d hit the ir c ar. Ap pe lla nt t hr e w t he c ar i n r e ve rs e and He rre ra c ould hear the t ires squealing a s he tried to g et awa y . The g ray

car was fina lly

fre ed and it l e ft , a lth ou g h on e of its hu bc a bs ha d fa lle n o ff

a s a re su lt o f t

he c oll isi on . H e rr e ra

tol d Jer e my

to run to the neig hbors and c all 911, and she r an af ter the g ray car to see in which direction it had g one. The police arr ived quickly . Her rer a desc ribed the ve hicle and the three men, and told the off icer s the direc tion in which they wer e trave ling. Her rer a went inside her home with the office rs and found a broke n kitchen window in the r ear of the house. She also discovere d that sever al music CDs, her son’s Play station, a

nd a pink pillowca se wer e also missing. She told the police what items ha d been taken in the b u r g la

r y . A f te r a f e w mi nu te s , th e o f

f ic e r s e s c o rte d

H e r r e r a an d h e r s o nto a n e arby apartment co mp le x an d

a s k e d w h e th e r s h e r e c o g n iz e d

an y o f th e v e h ic le s th e r e . H e r

r e r a s aw the g ray Honda a n d t o l d t h e o ff

icer s it was the same c ar. The office rs then told her the y had thre e suspects in custody . Whil e He rre ra a nd J ere my

sat in the bac k seat of a

patrol ca r, the police broug htthe su sp e c ts into vie w one -b y -o ne and the y vie we d ea c h susp e c t fr om a dis tanc e of a bo ut t we nty fe e t. She and Jer e my ide nti fi e d the thr e e me n a s th e same on e s th e y ha d s e e n ju st m inute s b e fo re a t th e ir house. B asing her ide ntification on his fac e, Herre ra identified Appellant as the driver . The police later showe d Her

rer a numer ous items of property rec overe d from the g ray Honda. She identifie d the fo llo wi nga s h e r p ro pe rt

y take n in the burg lary : th ir ty -f ive DV D m ov ie s, fi ve Play statio n g a me s, forty -two music CDs, two CD play ers, earphone s, a C y berhome DVD play er, a

nd a pink pillowcase

. Offic er Thoma s J eff

erson of the S an Antonio Police Depa rtment was dispatched to Her rer a’s house and he spoke with her a bout the morning ’s eve nts. She told hi m her home ha d been burg larized and she ha d struck their c ar with her car a s they tried to leave . Her

rer a also provide d a descr iption of the three suspe cts. The f irst suspect was a black male wearing a white shirt and black headba nd or “do-r ag ” whom she saw leave her home and g et into the front passe ng er se at of a g ray Honda Civic. The se cond suspec t was t h e d river, a nd the third suspect wa s sitti ng in the rea r passeng er se at . J eff

erson immediately

put out over the ra dio the descr iption of the suspects, the

ve hic le , a nd the dir e c tio n th e y

we re tr a ve li ng. Jef

fe rs on re ma ine d at th e ho us e wi th H e rr e ra to prese rve e vidence and he c ontinued to gather information about the burg lary and the proper ty taken. Five to se ven mi nutes afte r m aking the radio repor t, a poli ce office r not ified J eff erson that he had made c ontact with possible suspects and a vehicle matching Her

rer a’s de scription at a ne arby apar tment complex. J eff

erson took He rre ra a

nd her son to the c omplex and she ide n t i fi ed a g ray Ho nd a . H e rr e ra

and he r s on fi rs t vi e we d Jose phSte wa rt , a n A fr ic an A me ri c an ma le , and b oth ide nti fi e d h im a s th e pe rs on se a te d in the fr on t pas se ng e r se a t. Th e y ne xt vie we d App e lla nt a nd bo th ide nti fi e d h im a s th e dr ive r. Fin all y , the o ff ic e rs pr e se nte d Jac ob L a o a nd He rr e ra and Jer e my identified him as the per son seated in the ba ck seat of the Honda

. Offic er Ed u ar d o Rodrigue z of the San Antonio Pol ice De partment wa s dispatched to aburg lary

in p ro g re ss a

nd he arr ive d in a

pp ro xima te ly on e min

ute
. He rr e ra tol d him that tw o L a tin

ma le s and on e bla c k mal e ha d fle d in a gr ay Ho nd a . Sh e a lso state d th a t th e ve hic le ha d d a ma g e to its right fr ont quarter

panel a nd a flattened tire a

nd she indicated t h e d irec tion in which the g ray Honda ha d trave led when the suspects fle d. Rodrigue z could see that the suspec ts’ vehicle ha d left a tra il for him to follow beca use the rim wa s making contac t w ith the asphalt. Rodrigue z followed the t ra i l t o an apa

rtment complex located nea r He rre ra’ s house. L ooking at the vehicles in the parkingare a, Rodrig uez quickly found a g ray

Honda C i v ic with damag e to the rig ht front quar ter panel a nd two Hispanic male s were chan gi n g t he right front tire. Rodrig uez also noticed that the hubcap w as m issing. Rodrig uez identified Appellant a s one of the two ma les. As Rodrig uez exi ted his pa tr ol ca

r an d a p p r o a c h e d , b o t h A p p e l l an tan d t h e o t h e r m a l e , Ja c o b L a o , a

p p e ar e d e xtr e m e ly

nervous a nd kept askingRodrigue z why he wa s there. F ea ri n g Ap pellant and L ao mig ht flee, Rodrigue z handcuffe d them. Other of fice rs found the third suspect, J oseph S tewar t, in the apar

tment complex. J ose Aria s, a cr ime scene technicia n with the San Antonio Police D epar tment, photogr aphed and proc essed evidence at Herrer a’s home and at the apa rtment complex. Arias collec ted the hubca p which had be en torn off

of the suspect vehicle a

nd left in the stree t near

Her rer a’s c ar. When Ar ias proce ssed t h e g ray

Honda at the apar

tment complex, he found items which matched the

c omp la ina

nt’ s d e sc ri pti on

of pr op e rt y take n in the burg lary . H e too k the pr op e rt y to H e rr e ra ’s ho me and she identified it a s the proper ty taken during the burg lary that morning . Arias a lso processe d for fing erpr ints the complainant’s home, the r ecove red pr operty , and the g ray Honda. He collecte d three latent print ca

rds from the e x terior surf ace on top of t h e t ru n k l i d , t wo l atent print ca rds from the

e xter ior surface of th e Hond a ’s ri g ht r e ar w ind ow , a nd on e on the wi nd owsc re e n at th e burg lars ’ point of entry

into the home.Ver non Ginn, a fing erpr int ex aminer, matched the latent print taken f rom the exterior trunk of the g ra y Ho nd a wi th t he kn ow n p ri nt o f Jose ph Ste wa rt , th e ind ivi du a l bo th H e rr e ra and Jer e my desc ri bed as le aping and sliding a cross the trunk a s he fled. G inn was unable to match any of the oth e r l a te nt p ri nts
. J ere my Vasque z, the complainant’s son, testified at tria l

. E v er y o n e else in the family had

a lr e a dy le ft the ho us e wh e n Jer e my

le ft fo r s c ho ol a

ro un d 7 :30 a .m. He wa s han g ingou t w ithhis friends be fore school started w hen his mother approa ched and aske d what he ha d done with the DVD play er. H e told her he did not know what she wa s talking a bout so she took him to the car and the y drove ba ck home. While they wer e stopped at a light, they could see a silver Honda Civic parked in f ro nt o f t he ir ho us e . H is m oth e r d id n ot r e c og nize the c ar a nd sh e sp e d to wa

rd the ho us e . Just

as they g ot c lose, they saw a black male with something unde r his rig ht arm runningfrom their f ront por c h to w ar d

th e s il v e r H o n d a . T h e b la c k

ma le w a s w e ar in g a

b la c k “ d o - r a g ” o nh is h e a d

. After the black ma le g ot in the Honda, J ere my ’s m other hit the car but the driver was a ble to g et the ca

r in rev e r s e an d

le a v e . H is mo th e r

c o u ld n o t f o ll o w th e m b e c a

u s e th e w h e e l h a d

f a ll e no f f th e c ar. The silver H onda also ha d a flat tire. J er em y called 911f rom a ne ighbor ’s house a nd the police

arr ived in a fe w minutes. Wi thin five or ten minutes, the police took Jeremy and his mother to an

a pa rtme nt c omp le x to vi e w s ome su sp e c ts. No bo dy su gg est ed to Jer e my or his mot he r t hat th e se
wer e the same men who ha d burg larized his house. J ere my viewed thr ee suspe cts one-by -one a nd ide nti fi e d th e m a s th e same thr e e me n h e ha d s e e n ju st m inute s e arl ie r at hi s h ome . Jer e my a lso made a n in-court ide n t i fi ca t i o n of Appe llant as the driver of the silver H onda. When cha lleng ed about his identification, J ere my said he wa s sure that Appe llant was the drive r. J oseph S tewar

t testified on Appellant’s behalf at trial. He admitted committ ing the burg lary of the He rre ras’ home on Novembe r 7, 2005. At the time, Stewar t was living in F loresville but healso lived in an empty apar tment at the complex where they wer e ar rested. Stewa

rt owned the g ray Honda used during the commission of the burg lary

. Stewart knew Appellant throug h J acob L ao but he c on sid e re d App e lla

nt as on ly an ac qu a int anc e . Ste wa rt did no t hav e any mon e y so he de c ide d to commit a burgla

ry . L ao drove Stewart’s car while Stewart sat in the front passeng er se at. Stewar t pic ke d th e He rr e ra s’ ho us e a t r and om. L a o d ro pp e d St e wa

rt of f at the ho us e and

he burg lari zed

it while L ao drove the ca

r bac k to the apar

tment complex and waited for him. Stewar t returne d to the apar tment complex and L ao picke d him up so they coul d return to the house . At the house, a car driven by a woman rammed them but the y wer e able to back up a

nd g et awa

y even thoug h the Honda had a f lat tire. They

went to the opposite side o f t h e ap artment complex wher e Appe llant lived beca use they knew they

could not be s een f

rom the house Stewa

rt had just burg larized. Stewart wanted to f

ix the tire a s fast as he could and lea ve the a rea becaus e he knew

the police would be loo k i n g f o r h i m . S t e w art w a s t o o n e r v o u s t o c h an g e t h e t i r e s o L a o a s k e d A p p e l l an t t o h e l p h im while S tewart we n t t o th e a p artm e n t. T h e p o li c e c a me f o r St e w art a

n d to o k h im to anar e a

in the complex to b e id e n ti f

ie d

. St e w art t o ld

th e p o li c e th a t o n ly

o n e o th e r

p e r s o nw a s inv o lv e d

in the bu r g l ar y w i t h h i m an d h e g a v e a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t i n g t h a t A p p e l l an t d i d n o t p art i c ipa te in the burg lary

. On his judicia l c onfession made when he enter ed his g uilty plea, Stewa

rt crosse d out the sentenc e in which he admitt ed acting in conce rt and as a party with L ao and A

ppellant. During

cross-e x amination, the prosec utor established that as part of his guilty plea, Stewa

rt had stipulated that the police r eports we re c orre ct
. T h o s e reports indicated that Appellant had c ommitt ed the burg lary wi th S te wart and

L a o. Ste wa

rt wa s una wa re that L a o h a d a c c e pte d r e sp on sib ili ty fo r h is p arti nt h e b u r g l a

r y an d h a d i mp l i c a t e d

A p p e l l an ti nt h e c o m m i s s i o no f t h e b u r g l ar

y. Ver onica Rodriguez, Appellant’s former g irlfriend, te stified that Appellant spent the nig ht

w it h h e r o nN o v e mb e r

7 , 2 0 0 5
. Ro dr igu e z l iv e d with E lo is e A n dr a d e a t t h e a p artm e n t c o mp le x.Andra de’s boy friend, Junior, was also at the apa rtment. Appellant took Andra de’s c hildren to school the ne xt mor

nin g and the n r e tur

ne d to the a

pa rtme nt at aro un d 7:4 5 or 8 a .m. At fi rs t, V e ro nic a

sa id that Andra de’s mother

arr ived to g ive Andra de a r ide to wo rk and mentioned that the police wer e
a t th e a pa rtme nt c omp le x. Th e n s tatin g that sh e wa s c on fu se d, Ve ro nic a c or re c te d h e r t e sti mony

to
say that so me tim e a ft e r 8 a .m. , J a c ob L a o k no c ke d o n th e do or

and a sk e d to us e the ph on e be c a us e he nee ded help c hang ing a f l at tire. Ve ronica

noticed that L ao wa s fra

ntic and she told Appe llant to help him. After a

littl e while, Andr ade’ s boy friend, J unior, left t o throw out the trash a nd saw that the pol ice were arr esting Appellant, L ao, and Stewa rt. Ver onica trie d to tell the police that Appellant ha d b e e n w ith he r that mor nin g , bu t th e y

wo uld no t li ste n to he r a

nd tol d h e r t o le a ve or

the y wo uld

arr est her. Ver onica testified on Appellant’s behalf beca use he ha d alway s been the re f or her . After Appellant’s a

rre st, Veronica

did not make any eff

ort to te ll any one that Appe llant had bee n with her that morning beca

use she g ot ba ck tog ether

with her boy friend a

nd had a ba

by . A cour

t-appointed investigator “tra cked [her] down” a nd she g ave a

written statement on August 1, 2006. The c ourt’s cha

rg e included an ins truction on the l aw of parties a nd the application parag raph

as k e d th e ju

r y to d e te r mi n e w h e th e r A p p e ll an t w a s g u il ty o f b u r g la r y o f a h a b it a ti o n a s e ithe r the primary actor or as a party . The jury

reje cted Appe llant’s alibi defe nse and f oun d him guilty

of burg lary of a ha bitation. The trial cour

t assessed Appe llant’s punishmen t at a fine of $1,500 and im pr iso nme nt f

or six y e ars bu t su sp e nd e d th e se nte nc e and pla c e d App e lla

nt o n c omm

un ity supervision for six y ear s. The Te x as Supreme Court tra nsfer red the appea l to this court by order enter ed on Apr il 2, 2007. JUR IS DI CT IO NAL CH AL LE NGE I n his first four issues, Appe llant challeng es the jurisdi ction of t his court over his appea l. He first argues that Section 73.001 of the G overnme nt Code i s u n co nstitut ional and violative of theEqual P rotec tion Clause because it does not g ive proper effec t to Texas voters who elec t the justices

of the interme diate appe llate cour ts. Second, he contends we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal beca use the Supreme Court’s transfe r order is unconstituti onal due to a c onflict betwe en the Te x as Constit ution and Chapter 73 of the Gover

nment Code. Third, Appe llant claims jurisdiction is absent beca use the tra nsfer order violates the equa l protection and due course of l aw provisions of the Te x as Con sti tut ion . F ina lly , App e lla nt m a int a ins that th e tr ans fe r or de r is unc on sti tut ion a l be c a us e it i s a void exercise of le g islative authority over the judiciary

in viol ati on of the Sepa

ration of Power s pr ov isi on fo un d in Ar tic le 2, Se c tio n 1 of

the Te xas C on sti tut ion . H e a sk s u s to tr ans fe r t he c a se ba c k to the F ourt

h Co ur t of Ap pe a ls. To prese rve a c o mp la in t f o r a p p e ll a te r e v ie w , a

p arty mu s t r a is e th e is s u e b y

a ti me ly and specific objection or motion. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 33.1(a) . Even c onstitut ional err ors may be wa ived by failure to object. W

rig ht v . S tate , 2 8 S. W.3 d 5 26 , 5 36 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Br ox ton v . S tate , 909 S.W .2d 912, 918 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Gene rally a par ty on appea l is seeki n g to raise a complaint about some ruling of the trial court. I n this case, howe ver, A ppellant is complaining about

an ac tion of the Texas Supreme Court after he f iled his notice of appe al to the Four th Court of Ap pe a ls. Th e iss ue s w e mus t de c ide are wh e the r Ap pe lla nt is ob lig a te d to pr e se rv e his c omp la int s about the tra

nsfer order and the constitutionalit y of Section 73.001, as applied to him, and if so, how does he pr eser

ve the e rror ? The Supreme Court transfe rre d sever al appe als, includ i n g t h e i nstant appea l, to this court purs ua nt t o Se c tio n 7 3. 00 1 o f t

he Te xas G ov e rnme nt C od e . T hat se c tio n p ro vid e s: The supre me court may order case s transfe rre d from one court of a ppeals to anothe r at any time that, in the opinion of t h e supreme cour t, there is g ood cause for the transfe r. T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 73 .0 01 (V e rn on 20 05 ). Al th ou gh th e a

uth or ity g ra nte d to the Sup re meA rtic le V , S e c tio n 6 o f t h e T e x a s C o n stitutio n p ro v id e s: 1 Sec. 6. ( a) T he s t at e s hal l be di vi ded i nt o cour t s o f ap peal s d i s t r i ct s , wi t h e ach di s t r i ct ha vi ng a Chi ef Jus t i ce, t wo or more ot her Ju s t i ces , and s uch o t her o f f i ci al s as may b e p r ovi ded by l aw. T he Jus t i ces s hal l ha ve t he qual i f

i cat i ons pre s cr i bed f

or J us t i ces of

t he Supre me C our t
. T he C our t o f Ap peal s may sit i n se c tio n s a s a u tho riz e d b y law . T h e c o n c u rr e n c e o f a m a jo rity o f t h e ju d g e s sitti n g in a se c tio n is n e c e ssa ry to d e c id e a c a se . S a id C o u rt o f A p p e a ls s h a ll h a v e a p p e llate j u risd ic tio n c o -ex te n siv e w ith t h e l i mi t s of

t h ei r re s pec t i v e di s t r i ct s , w h i ch s h al l e x t en d t o a l l c as es of w h i ch t h e D i s t r i ct Cour t s or C ount y Co ur t s ha ve ori gi nal or appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on, un der s uch r es t r i ct i ons an d re gu l at i ons as may b e p res cri b ed by l aw. P rovided , t hat t he d eci si o n of sai d co urt s shal l b e co ncl usi ve o n al l que st i o ns of f act broug ht bef

ore t hem on app eal o r er r or. Sai d cour t s s hal l ha ve s uch ot her j ur i s di ct i on, ori gi nal and a pp el l at e, as may be pre s cr i bed b y l aw. T EX .C O N ST . a r t
. V , §6. Court by Se c tio n 7 3. 00 1 is ty

pic a lly e xer c ise d to e qu a lize the do c ke ts o f t he int e rm e diate a

pp e llate courts, the statute does not limi t the Supreme Court’s a uthority to that purpose. Miles v. Ford M otor Company , 914 S.W .2d 135, 137 (Tex. 1995). Ap pe lla nt s tate s h is i ssu e s in

te rm s o f a

c ha lle ng e to o ur

jur isd ic tio n. Ge ne ra lly , a pa rt y is

n o t r e qu ir e d to p r e s e r

v e a c h a ll e n g e to th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls ’ ju r is d ic ti o n w h ic h is de fined by the Texas Consti tution and by statute. See T EX .C O N ST . art
. V, § 1 ( c ourt s in wh ic h ju dic ia l po we r i s vested), T EX .C O N ST . art . V , § 6 (c ourt s o f a pp e a ls) ; T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 21.001 (Ve rnon 1 200 4 )( i n h er ent power

and duty of cour ts), T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 22.220 (civil jurisdiction), T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 2 2

. 2 0 1 ( V e r n o n Su p p . 2 0 0 8 ) ( courts of a

ppeals districts), T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 22.221 (writ powe r), T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . §§ 73 .0 01 -7 3

. 0 0 2 ( tr a ns fe r o f c ourt s o f a

pp e a ls’

c a se s) ; T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 4.01 (V ernon 2005) (providing that courts of a ppeals have jur isd ic tio n in c ri min a l a c tio ns ); T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . ar t. 4.0 3 ( pr ov idi ngthat “ [t]he Court s of Ap pe a ls s ha ll h a ve a

pp e llate jur isd ic tio n c oe xten siv e wi th the lim its of the ir re sp e c tiv e dis tr ic ts in all criminal ca ses except those in which the de ath pena lty has been assessed.” ). Section 73.002 sp e c if ic a lly pr ov ide s: (a ) T he c ourt

of a pp e a ls t o w hic h a

c a se is t ransfer red has jur isd ic tio n o f t he c a se wi tho ut r e g ard

to t he dis tr ic t in

wh ic h th e c a se or ig ina lly wa s tr ie d a

nd to whic h it

isre tur na ble on a pp e a l. Even if Sect i o n 73.001 is unconstituti onal as a pplied to Appellant, we w ould not be divested of jurisdiction. Accor dingly , we c onclude that Appe llant is not ex cused f rom p reserving the constitutional arg uments he ra ises with respec t to the transfe r orde r. The Tex as S upreme Court has established that the pr oper pr ocedur e for obtaining a

transfe r is by motion: The pa rty reque sting a

transfe r should file a copy of the motion to t ransf er in e ach of the tw o c ourt s o f a

pp e a ls, a sk ingthat, wh e n the mot ion is fo rw ard e d to the Sup re me Court, eac h court of a

ppeals a dvise the S upreme Court in writing whether it has any objection to the proposed tr ansfe r. Any bri ef s i n favor of the propose d transfe r should also be filed in ea ch cour t of appe als and forwar ded with the tra nsfer motion. We will then have the motion, the brief s, and t he comments of the two courts of appea ls in determining whether to gr ant the motion to transfer

. Miles , 914 S.W .2d at 137 n.2. C i t i n g Miles , the State maintains that Appellant has not followe d the prope r proc edure for

se e k in g tr an s f

e r o f h is c a s e b a c k

to th e F o u rth

Co u rt o f A p p e a ls

. I nh is r e p ly

b r ie f , A p p e ll ant
re sp on ds t h a t h e s h o u l d n o t h a v e t o “ a c qu i e s c e ” t o t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e S u

p r e m e C o u rt i n o r d e r

to ha ve h i s “ c r i m i n a l l aw m a t t e r ” t r an s f e r r e d b a c k t o t h e F o u rt h C o u rt o f A p p e a l s . B u t h e fa ils to
re c og nize that if

he ha d fo llo we d the e sta

bli sh e d pr oc e dure and the Sup re me Court ha d g ra nte d h is motion and transfe rre d the appe al bac k t o the Four th Court of Appea ls, his complaints about the constitutionalit y

of Section 73.001 would be co m pletely reme died. That is the ver y purpose of

re qu ir inga

tim e ly and sp e c if ic ob jectio n. I f, on

the oth e r h and , th e Sup re me Cou rt de nie d h is mot ion , the n we wo uld be in a po sit ion to a dd re ss the c on sti tut ion a l iss ue s he rai ses . Be c a us e Appellant has r efuse d to avail himself of an established proce dure w hich potentially could re medy the alleg ed constitutional violations, we conclude that he has f ailed to pre serve his complaints about the transfe r of his a

ppeal. Having said that, we pause to note that we share some of A p p el l ant’sE f f ect i ve Sept emb er 1, 200 8, Rul e 41. 3 was added t o t he T exa s Rul es of Ap pel l at e Procedur e: 2 4 1 .3. P rec ed en t i n T ran sf erre d C ase s. In c a se s tra n sfe rr e d b y the S u p re m e C o u rt fro m o n e c o u rt o f ap p e a ls to a n o the r, the c o u rt o f ap p e a ls t o w h i ch t h e c as e i s t r an s f er r ed mu s t dec i de t h e c as e i n ac cor dan ce wi t h t h e pr ec ede n t of t h e t r an s f

er or cour t un der pri nc i p l es o f st ar e deci s i s i f

t he t r ans f

er ee cour t ’ s deci s i on ot her wi s e woul d hav e been i nco nsi st ent wi t h t he p reced ent of t he t rans f eror co urt
. T he co urt ’ s o p i ni o n m ay st at e whet her t he o u tc o m e w o u ld ha v e b e e n d if fe re n t ha d the tra n sfe re e c o u rt n o t b e e n re q u ire d to d e c id e the c a se in a c c o rd a n c e w ith the tra n sfe ro r c o u rt’s p re c e d e n t. T he C o m m en t t o t he 2 0 0 8 ch an ge p ro vid es:

Su bd i v i s i on 41

. 3 i s a dd e d t o r e qu i r e , i n a pp e l l a t e c a s e s t r a n s f e r r e d b y t h e S u pr e me Cou r t un der Sect i on 73. 00 1 of

t he G over nment C od e f or docket equa l i zat i on or ot her pur po s es , t hat t he t r ans f er ee co urt m ust genera lly res o l ve any co nf l i ct be t ween t he p reced ent of t he t rans f eror co urt and t he p reced ent of t he t rans f

eree co urt
- - o r t hat of any o t her i nt erm ed i at e ap p el l at e co urt t he t rans f eree co urt o t herwi se wo ul d have f o l l o wed

- - b y f

o l l o wi ng t he p reced ent o f t he t rans f eror co urt , unl ess i t ap p ears t hat t he t r ans f

er or c our t i t s el f

woul d not be bound by t hat p r ece dent

. T he r ul e requi r es t he t r ans f er ee cour t t o “ s t and i n t he s hoes ” of t he t r ans f

er or c our t s o t hat an appel l at e t r ans f er wi l l not produce a di f f er en t ou t come , bas ed on appl i ca t i on of s u bs t an t i v e l aw , t h an w ou l d h av e r es u l t ed h ad t h e ca s e n ot bee n t r an s f

er r ed. T h e t r an s f

er ee c ou r t i s n ot e x pec t ed t o f ol l ow t h e t r an s f

er or c ou r t ’ s l oca l r u l es or o the rw ise su p p la n t i ts o w n lo c a l p ro c e d u re s w ith tho se o f t h e tra n sfe ro r c o u rt. conce rns ab o u t t h e docke t equalization process. To some e x tent, rec ent rule a mendments have improved th e s i t u at i o n . And we a pplaud both defe nse counse l and the State for their excellent 2 br ie fi ngand

argume nts on

the se iss ue s. B ut b e c a

us e the iss ue s are no t r ipe fo r o ur re vie w, we mus t
overr ule I ssues One throug h Four

.

F ACTUAL SUF F ICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE I n I ssu e F ive , App e lla

nt c ha lle ng e s th e fa c tual su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g his conviction of burg lary . More spe cifica lly , he ar g ues the e vidence is factua lly insufficient to prove his identification beca

use the identification proce dure was unduly sug g estive and r ender ed the inc o u rti d e n t i f

i c a t i o nb y H e r

r e r a an d J e r e m y u n t r

u s t w o rt h y. Standard of Review A fa ctual suff

iciency revie w beg ins with the pr esumption that the evidenc e supporting the conviction i s l ega l l y sufficie nt. Cle wis v . S tate , 9 2 2 S

. W
. 2 d

1 2 6 , 1 3 4 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 )

. Inrevie wing fac tual sufficie ncy of the e vidence to support a conviction, we are to view all the evidence in a neutra l light, favoring neither pa rty
. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Cle wis , 9 22 S.W. 2d

a t 12 9. I n r e vie wi ngle g a l and fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y c ha lle ng e s, we c on sid e r a ll of the e vidence , whether admissible or inadmissible. Po we ll v . S tate , 194 S.W .3d 503, 507 (T ex .C rim. Ap p. 20 06 ); Ma rsh all v . S tate , 2 1 0 S. W. 3 d

6 1 8 , 6 2 5 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 6 )

. We de te rm ine wh e the r t

he fa c t fin de r wa s ra tio na lly jus tif ie d in fin din g g uil t be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. W ats on v . S tate , 2 0 4 S

. W
. 3 d

4 0 4 , 4 1 5 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e f ac tfi n d er i s t h e e x cl u s i v e j u d ge of the witnesse s’ cr edibility and the we ight to be g iven their testimony

. Sw ear in gen v. Sta te , 101 S.W .3d 89, 97 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003)

. Fur ther, the revie wing court must g ive due def ere nce to the fac t finder’ s determinations. Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 10-12. The judgme nt should not be set aside

un le ss t he e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the ve rd ic t is so we a k a s to be c le arl y wr on g and

manif e stl y un jus t or the ve rdict is a g ainst the g reat w eig ht a nd preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. W atson , 204 S.W .3d at 411. Identification To prove bur g lary

of a ha bitation, the State must prove bey ond a rea sonable doubt that the d e f e n d an te n t e r e d

a h a b i t a t i o nw i t h o u t t h e o w n e r ’ s c o n s e n t an d w i th t h e i n t e n tt o c o m m i ta f e l o n y, theft, or a ssault. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 30.02(a) (1)( Ver non 2003). The State must prove bey ond

a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t t h a t t h e d e f e n d an t i s th e p e r s o nw h o c o mm itte d th e c h ar g e d

o f f ense. Johnson

v . S tate , 673 S.W .2d 190, 196 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). T h e i n d i ctment alleg ed that Appe llant intentionally

and knowing ly

enter ed a ha

bitat ion without Audrie Her rer a’s c onsent and with the int e nt to co mmi t th e f

t
. A ni n d i v i d

u a l c anb e c h ar g e d

a s a p art y t o ano f f e n s e an d c anb e h e ld criminally

responsible for the conduct of another when that individual acts in conce rt with another person i n co m m i tting an of fense . T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . §§7.01-7.02 (Ve rnon 2003).Circumstantial evidenc e alone may be used to prove that a per son is a party to an offense. Beardsley

v . S tate , 738 S.W .2d 681, 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). Fur thermore , a per son can be convicted a s
a party even if the indictment does not expl icitly char g e him as a pa

rty
. Ma ra blev . S

tate , 85 S.W .3d 2 8 7 , 2 8 8 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 2 ). An i n d i v i d u al ca n b e gui l t y o f bu rgl ary o f a ha b i t at i o nev en t h o u gh he does not pe rsonally

enter the burg larized premises if he is acting toge ther with an other in the

c o mm is s io n o f th e offe nse. Po we ll v . S tate , 194 S.W .3d 503, 507 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). The court’s c harg e included a

n instruction on the law of pa rties and the a

pplication para g raph a

pplied the law of pa rties to the fa cts of this case

. Rev iew of the Evidenc e Appellant did not file a motion to suppress the in-c ourt identification or object to hi s in-court identification by

either H err era

or Jeremy . There fore , the in-cour t identification by

these witnesse s is not subject to suppression in the context of thi s fac tual sufficiency challeng e and w e will not revie w the admissibility

of the in-c ourt identi fi ca t i o n . Stated differ ently , a dete rmination that the witnesses’ identific ations were based on an impermissibly sug g estive pre trial proce dure w ould not

re nd e r t he e vid e nc e ins uf

fi c ie nt. Her rer a and he r son J er em y b o t h had an oppor tunity to view Appellant immediately afte r Her rer a cr ashed he r ca

r into the g ray

Honda Civic. He rre ra a

nd J ere my

provided a

descr iption of the suspects and the ir ca

r to the police. Within mi nutes, the police found a car a nd three suspects which

matc he d th e de sc ri pti on s p ro vid e d b y He rr e ra and Jer e my . Apo lic e of

fi c e r t oo k H e rr e ra

and Jer e my to t he a pa rtme nt c omp le x an d H e rr e ra ide nti fi e d th e g ra

y Ho nd a a s th e same c ar s he ha d h it. B oth He rr e ra and Jer e my ha d a n o pp or tun ity to v ie w A

pp e llan t at the a

pa rtme nt c omp le x an d b oth identified him as the drive r of the c ar. A t trial, eac h of these w itnesses made a n in- co urt ide nti fi c a tio n o f A

pp e lla nt as th e driv e r o f t

he g ra y Ho nd a and the y re ma ine d f

ir m in the iride nti fi c a tio n e ve n in the fa c e of

c ro ss- e xami natio n. Ap pe lla nt pr e se nte d tw o wi tne sse s at tr ia l, h is

c o- de fe nd ant S te wa

rt and his fo rm e r g ir lf

ri e nd Ve ro nic a

Rod ri g ue z, w ho te sti fi e d th a t App e lla nt d id not participate in the burg lary . I t was the jury ’s task to weig h the cr edibility of all t he witnesses and to resolve this conflict in the evidenc e. The jury resolved these issues ag ainst Appellant and re jected his alibi defense . We conclude that the evidenc e is fac tually sufficie nt to prove that Appe llant is the person who c ommitt ed the c harg ed off ense. I ssue Five is overrule d. COMMENT BY TRIAL COURT I n h i s fi na l is su e , App e lla

nt c omp la ins that th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in c omm e nti ngduri ngde fe ns e counsel’s ope ning statement. The St ate r esponds that any err or is waived be cause Appellant fa iled to object. Counsel argued that the identific ation of Appe l l ant was ba sed solely on the testimony

of Her rer a and J ere my

and that they

wer e mistaken. The State objected that this amounted to arg ument rathe r than a

summation of the evidenc e they intended to pr esent. The trial c ourt did not rule on the objection and instructe d defe nse counse l to procee d. The followingthen occ urre d: [Defense counsel]: So, hopefully , our witnesses will be able to cla rify a lot of that information. Now, ladie s and g entlemen, you need to r emember what the burden of pr oo f i s h e re . T he burd e n o f p ro of is how muc h the dis tr ic t atto rn e y ’s of fi c e ha s to pr ov e to you -a ll o r c on vi ction you a ll o f t he tr uth fu lne ss o f what ha

pp e ne d o n th is p art i c u l ar d ay. [The prosecutor ]: That’s a n incorre ct statement, a s well. Ou r b u rd en is bey ond a rea sonable doubt. I t’s up to them to make that deter mination. [De fe ns e c ouns e l]: I ’m

so rr y , K a thy

. Iwa s g e tti ngthe re . T he ir pa rt ic ula r b ur de n in this ty pe of c ase is be y ond a rea sonable doubt. Now, bey ond a rea sonable doubt ca n mean a lot of things to eve ry person. I mean, e very

person ha s a diffe rent opinion. You know, if I

ask what the color of my shirt was? Every

body would probably

say something diff

ere nt. There ’s a name for e very thing. The re’ s mauve, purple , dark blue, whate ver. Eve ry one has a differ ent opinion, except in this particular instanc e, bey ond a re asonable doubt has t o b e s o m ething extremely convincingto y ourself.[The prosecutor ]: Ag ain, I ’m g oing to object to this. There ’s no def inition. S he’s interjec ting a

definition. Iapolog ize for the dis cre pancy . There ’s a pr oper instruc tion to the jury . The jury

is g iven a c hance at the end, a nd there ’s not a def

inition, and I ’m objectingto any

sug g estion of what the de finition is; there is none. [De fe ns e c ouns e l]: Yo ur Ho no r, that’ s what I ’m sa ying , that eve ry ind ivi du a l has a differ ent opinion. [The Court] : L adies a

nd g entlemen of

the jury -- [The prosecutor ]: And it’s argumentative. [Th e Court ]: - - a

re a so na ble do ub t is a do ub t bas e d o n r e a so n, and we have to r e ly on y our individual sense of rea son, sense of rea son that eac h of y ou possess. Eac h of y ou must decide for

y ourselves w hether

there i s a re asonable doubt or whethe r there is not. Go ahea d, please

. Def ense counsel did not object to the trial court’s state ment but instead proce eded w ith the opening state me nt. A par ty must bring a

n err or to the trial court’s attention by a timely and specific motion or objection. T EX .R.A PP .P. 33.1. The contempora neous objec tion rule applies to alleg edly improper comments by

t h e t ri al j u d ge. Se e Fu e nte s v . S tate , 991 S.W .2d 267, 276 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (f a ilure to o bje c t to tr ia l c ourt ’s c omm e nts c on sti tut e d w a ive d) ; Be ltran v . S tate , 99 S.W .3d 807, 811 (T e x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton

[14t h D ist .] 20 03 , p e t. r e f’ d) (h old ingde fend ant fa ile d to pr e se rv e e rr or wi th respe ct to trial court’ s comments beca use defe ndant failed to obje ct). Appellant argues, howe ver, that the trial cour

t’s comment was so eg reg ious that a n instruction w ould not have cure d the er ror,
and the re fo re , h e wa s e xcu se d from ob jec ti ng . App e lla

nt c ite s n o a

uth or ity in s up po rt

of his contention that he is excused fr om preser ving e rror . Fur

ther, he does not argue that the t rial cour t’s comments rise to the l evel of fundame ntal err or, t aint the presumption of innocence , or vitiate the j u r y’ s i mp art i a l i t y. Se e J

as pe r v . S tate , 6 1 S. W.3 d 4 13 , 4 21 (Tex .C ri m.A pp . 2 00 1) . B e c a

us e Ap pe lla nt f a ile d to ob

je c t to the tr ia l c ourt ’s c omm e nts , w e fi nd that he wa ive d e rr or . I ssu e Six isoverr

uled. Havingoverr

uled ea ch i s s u e prese nted for r eview, w e af firm the judg ment of the trial

c ourt
. J une 30, 2009 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ. Carr, J., not participating (Do Not Publish)