## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. P D

- 1 0 9 9

- 1 3

R O N A L D A N T O N I O B O N I L L A

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E T E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

B R A Z O S C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n w h i c h K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , a n d

M E Y E R S

, K E A S L E R a n d H E R V E Y

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. A L C A L A

, J

. , f i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n

i n w h i c h J O H N S O N

, J

. , j o i n e d

. P R IC E

, J

. , f i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h

W O M A C K

, J

. , j o i n e d

.

O P I N I O N

T h e i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s w h o b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f s h o w i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n

c u m u l a t i n g i n d e c e n c y

- w i t h

- a

- c h i l d s e n t e n c e s w h e n s o m e s e x u a l a b u s e t o o k p l a c e b e f o r e t h e

1 9 9 7 P e n a l C o d e a m e n d m e n t s p e r m i t t i n g c u m u l a t i o n o f s e n t e n c e s f o r c h i l d s e x u a l o f

f e n s e sBonilla Pag e 2

a n d s o m e t o o k p l a c e a f

t e r t h a t d a t e

. W e w i l l a p p l y o u r n o r m a l a p p e l l a t e r u l e o f r e v i e w : T h e

1

p a r t y w h o c o m p l a i n s a b o u t t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s a c t i o n o n d i r e c t a p p e a l b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f

o b j e c t i n g a t t r i a l a n d p r o v i d i n g a r e c o r d t h a t s h o w s t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s e r r o r

. 2

A p p e l l a n t r e l i e s u p o n t h e 1 9 9 5 d a t e s s e t o u t i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t a n d i n t h e j u d g m e n t a s

b e i n g t h e o n l y d a t e s o n w h i c h t h e j u r y c o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h a t t h e o f

f e n s e s o c c u r r e d

. B u t

a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t s h o w

, e i t h e r a t t r i a l o r o n a p p e a l

, t h a t t h e j u r y c o u l d n o t h a v e f o u n d h i m

g u i l t y o f a n o f

f e n s e t h a t o c c u r r e d a f

t e r S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

, t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e

c u m u l a t i o n s t a t u t e

. I n s t e a d

, t h e r e i s a m p l e e v i d e n c e t o s h o w t h a t a p p e l l a n t b e g a n s e x u a l l y

a b u s i n g D

. B

. i n 1 9 9 5 ( b e f o r e t h e 1 9 9 7 a m e n d m e n t p e r m i t t i n g c u m u l a t i o n b e c a m e e f f e c t i v e )

a n d c o n t i n u e d t o s e x u a l l y a b u s e h i m u n t i l 2 0 0 2 ( a t l e a s t f i v e y e a r s a f

t e r t h e 1 9 9 7 a m e n d m e n t

b e c a m e e f

f e c t i v e )

. W e t h e r e f

o r e a g r e e w i t h t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e “ d i d n o t

e r r i n s t a c k i n g t h e s e n t e n c e s ” b e c a u s e t h e r e i s “ s o m e e v i d e n c e ” t h a t t h e o f f e n s e s o c c u r r e d

a f t e r S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

. 3

Appellant’s sole g round for revie w re ads as f

ollows: 1

The court of appea ls err ed when it found that the appellant’ s co n v i ct ions of

indece ncy with a child in counts 3 and 4 could be stacke d beca use they both occur

red

prior to September 1, 1997 and could not be stacke d under section 3.03 of the penal

code at that time.

See Martinez v. State

, 91 S.W .3d 331, 335-36 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2002) (citing State v. 2

Merc ado

, 972 S.W .2d 75, 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) for the proposition that, “under Rule 33.1, the

issue is not whether the appea ling party is th e S t at e o r the defe ndant or whether the trial court’s

ruling is leg ally ‘cor

rec t’ in ever

y sense, but whether the complaining party on appea l broug ht to the

trial court’s attention the very complaint that party is now making on appea l. This ‘ra ise it or waive

it’ forfe iture rule a

pplies equally

to goose and g ander , State and def endant.” ).

Bonilla v. State

, No. 10-12-00064- CR, 2013 WL 3482127, at *4 (Tex. App.–Waco J uly 11, 3

2013) (not desig nated f

or publication).Bonilla Pag e 3

I

.

O n A p r i l 1 6

, 2 0 0 9

, a p p e l l a n t w a s i n d i c t e d w i t h f o u r c o u n t s o f i n d e c e n c y w i t h a c h i l d :

1

. T o u c h i n g M

. B

. ’ s g e n i t a l s o n o r a b o u t J a n u a r y 1

, 2 0 0 2 ;

2

. C a u s i n g M

. B

. t o t o u c h a p p e l l a n t ’ s g e n i t a l s o n o r a b o u t J a n u a r y 1

, 2 0 0 2 ;

3

. T o u c h i n g D

. B

. ’ s g e n i t a l s o n o r a b o u t J a n u a r y 1

, 1 9 9 5 ;

4

. C a u s i n g D

. B

. t o t o u c h a p p e l l a n t ’ s g e n i t a l s o n o r a b o u t J a n u a r y 1

, 1 9 9 5

.

T h e e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l s h o w e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t c a m e t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s f r o m E l

S a l v a d o r a n d l i v e d w i t h v a r i o u s f a m i l y m e m b e r s

. H e l i v e d w i t h h i s b r o t h e r

, t h e f a t h e r o f

b o t h D

. B

. a n d M

. B

. , f o r m a n y y e a r s

. A p p e l l a n t s e x u a l l y a b u s e d b o t h D

. B

. a n d M

. B

.

t h r o u g h o u t t h e i r c h i l d h o o d

. D

. B

. t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t f

i r s t s t a r t e d s e x u a l l y m o l e s t i n g h i m

s o m e t i m e b e t w e e n 1 9 9 4 a n d 1 9 9 6

, w h e n h e w a s i n e i t h e r t h e f i r s t o r s e c o n d g r a d e

. D

. B

.

r e m e m b e r e d t h e d e t a i l s o f n u m e r o u s d i f f e r e n t i n c i d e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d b o t h a t h o m e a n d a t

a p p e l l a n t ’ s j o b s i t e

. W h e n D

. B

. w a s a b o u t t e n o r e l e v e n

, i n 1 9 9 8 o r 1 9 9 9

, a p p e l l a n t b e g a n

s t i m u l a t i n g h i m u n t i l h e w o u l d e j a c u l a t e

.

D

. B

. e x p l a i n e d t h a t

, a s h e b e c a m e a p r e

- t e e n a n d t e e n a g e r a f t e r 1 9 9 9

, a p p e l l a n t b e g a n

s h o w i n g h i m p o r n o g r a p h i c m a g a z i n e s a n d v i d e o s w h i l e s e x u a l l y a b u s i n g h i m

. I n 2 0 0 1

, D

. B

.

t o l d a p p e l l a n t t h a t h e d i d n o t w a n t t o e n g a g e i n s e x u a l a c t i v i t i e s w i t h h i m

. B u t w h e n

a p p e l l a n t t o l d h i m t h a t h e w o u l d c o m m i t s u i c i d e i f D

. B

. e v e r t o l d a n y o n e a n d s a i d t h a t h e

c o u l d n o t l i v e w i t h o u t D

. B

. i n h i s l i f e

, t h e t e e n a g e r c o n t i n u e d t o a l l o w a p p e l l a n t t o r u b h i s

g e n i t a l s

. A t s o m e p o i n t i n 2 0 0 2

, D

. B

. b e g a n p h y s i c a l l y r e s i s t i n g a p p e l l a n t ’ s a t t e m p t s t oBonilla Pag e 4

a b u s e h i m

. D

. B

. f

i n a l l y r e p o r t e d w h a t a p p e l l a n t h a d d o n e t o h i m t h r o u g h o u t h i s c h i l d h o o d

a n d y o u t h w h e n h e s a w s i g n s t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a s a l s o a b u s i n g h i s y o u n g e r b r o t h e r

, M

. B

. , i n

t h e s a m e w a y t h a t h e h a d b e e n a b u s e d

.

A p p e l l a n t ’ s d e f

e n s e w a s t h a t t h e b o y s f

a b r i c a t e d t h e i r s t o r y o f s e x u a l a b u s e ; h e n e v e r

t o u c h e d t h e m s e x u a l l y

, a n d t h e y n e v e r t o u c h e d h i m s e x u a l l y

. P e r i o d

.

D u r i n g c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s

, t h e p r o s e c u t o r e x p l a i n e d w h y h e h a d a l l e g e d t h e J a n u a r y

1

, 1 9 9 5

, d a t e i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t e v e n t h o u g h m o s t o f t h e a b u s e o c c u r r e d i n l a t e r y e a r s :

W e ’ v e a l l e g e d f

o r [ D

. B

. ] 1 9 9 5

. A n y t i m e b e t w e e n 1 9 9 5 a n d w h e n w e ’ v e g o t

t h i s d a t e a l l e g e d [ i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t ]

. B u t s p e c i f i c a l l y y o u c a n r e c a l l t h e

i n s t a n c e s a n d w h y w e r e p o r t e d i t a s 1 9 9 5 b e c a u s e [ D

. B

. ] r e m e m b e r s t h e f i r s t

t i m e

. K i d s r e m e m b e r f

i r s t a n d l a s t t i m e s a n d t h e y r e m e m b e r j u s t a l o t o f a b u s e

i n t h e m i d d l e

, b u t h e r e m e m b e r e d i t b e i n g e a r l y o n b e t w e e n f i r s t a n d t h i r d

g r a d e

. S o t h a t ’ s w h y w e a l l e g e t h a t 1 9 9 5 d a t e

. 1 9 9 6

– i t f a l l s w i t h i n t h a t

– t h a t

d a t e r a n g e t h a t w e w e r e t a l k i n g a b o u t

. 4

T h e j u r y f

o u n d a p p e l l a n t g u i l t y o n a l l f o u r c o u n t s a n d a s s e s s e d h i s p u n i s h m e n t a t f o u r t e e n

y e a r s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t o n e a c h c o u n t

. T h e p r o s e c u t o r t h e n a s k e d t h e t r i a l j u d g e t o “ s t a c k ”

C o u n t s 3 a n d 4 ( t h e c o u n t s i n v o l v i n g D

. B

. ) o n t o p o f C o u n t s 1 a n d 2 ( t h e c o u n t s i n v o l v i n g

M

. B

. , t h e y o u n g e r b r o t h e r )

. T h e j u d g e a s k e d

, “ M o t i o n f o r c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c e s ; c o r r e c t ? ”

A p p e l l a n t r e s p o n d e d

,

The jury char g e included the following instruction: 4

Date of the alleg ed offe nse: The State is not require d to prove the exact date alleg ed

in the i ndictment but may prove the offe nse, i f any

, to have be en committed at any

time prior to the prese ntment of the indict m en t so long as said offe nse, if any

,

occur red within ten y ear s afte r the 18th birthday of the alleg ed victim. The

indictment, which included all four counts in this case

, was prese nted on April 16th,

2009.Bonilla Pag e 5

Y o u r H o n o r

, w e a s k t h a t y o u d e n y t h e i r r e q u e s t

. W e b e l i e v e t h a t t h e j u r y h a s

h e a r d a l l t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t h a t t h e y h a v e s e t a p u n i s h m e n t t h a t t h e y d e e m e d

p r o p e r i n t h i s c a s e

. W e k n o w t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s a l s o h e a r d t h e e v i d e n c e

, b u t

w e w o u l d a s k t h a t y o u d e n y i t a n d t h a t y o u r u n a l l f o u r c o u n t s c o n c u r r e n t

.

T h e t r i a l j u d g e o r d e r e d t h a t “ C o u n t s 1 a n d 2 r u n c o n c u r r e n t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r

, C o u n t s 3 a n d

4 r u n c o n c u r r e n t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r ; b u t t h e s e n t e n c e s i n C o u n t s 3 a n d 4 b o t h r u n c o n s e c u t i v e

t o t h e s e n t e n c e s i n C o u n t s 1 a n d 2

. ”

O n a p p e a l

, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e d t h a t

, b e c a u s e a n o f f e n s e d a t e o f J a n u a r y 1

, 1 9 9 5

, w a s

l i s t e d i n t h e j u d g m e n t f o r c o u n t s 3 a n d 4 a n d t h a t d a t e w a s b e f o r e t h e e f

f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e

1 9 9 7 a m e n d m e n t p e r m i t t i n g c u m u l a t i o n o f c h i l d s e x u a l a b u s e o f f e n s e s

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d

i n s t a c k i n g t h o s e c o u n t s o n t o C o u n t s 1 a n d 2

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s r e j e c t e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s 5

c l a i m

, e x p l a i n i n g t h a t “ [ t ] h e o f f e n s e d a t e s r e c i t e d i n t h e j u d g m e n t s d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e n d e r

t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r s t a c k i n g t h e s e n t e n c e s i n v a l i d

. ” H e r e

, t h e S t a t e u s e d t h e p h r a s e “ o n 6

o r a b o u t ” i n i t s i n d i c t m e n t s o “ i t w a s f r e e t o p r o v e t h a t t h e s e o f f e n s e s o c c u r r e d o n a n y d a t e

p r i o r t o t h e p r e s e n t m e n t o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t a n d w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d

, w h i c h

h a d n o t e x p i r e d

. ” B e c a u s e t h e r e w a s “ s o m e e v i d e n c e ” t h a t a p p e l l a n t t o u c h e d D

. B

. ’ s p e n i s

a n d t h a t h e m a d e D

. B

. t o u c h h i s p e n i s “ m a n y ” t i m e s a f t e r J a n u a r y 1

, 1 9 9 7

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d

n o t e r r i n s t a c k i n g t h e s e n t e n c e s

. 7

W e g r a n t e d r e v i e w b e c a u s e t h e l a w i n t h i s a r e a i s u n s e t t l e d

. W h e n t h e i n d i c t m e n t a n d

Bonilla , 2013 WL 3482127, at *3-4. 5

Id. at *4. 6

Id. 7Bonilla Pag e 6

j u d g m e n t l i s t s a n o f

f e n s e d a t e t h a t i s b e f

o r e t h e e f

f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e a m e n d m e n t t o P e n a l

C o d e S e c t i o n 3

. 0 3

, b u t t h e e v i d e n c e s h o w s t h a t t h e a c t s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e d t h e o f f e n s e o c c u r r e d

b o t h b e f o r e a n d a f

t e r t h a t e f

f e c t i v e d a t e

, d o e s t h e t r i a l j u d g e h a v e t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o c u m u l a t e

t h e s e n t e n c e s ? H e d o e s

.

I I

.

P e n a l C o d e S e c t i o n 3

. 0 3 s e t s o u t w h e n s e n t e n c e s t h a t a r i s e o u t o f t h e s a m e c r i m i n a l

e p i s o d e m u s t b e s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y a n d w h e n t h e y m a y b e s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y

. G e n e r a l l y

,

s u c h s e n t e n c e s m u s t b e s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y

, b u t t h e r e a r e s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n s t o 8

t h a t r u l e

. O n e e x c e p t i o n w a s a d d e d i n 1 9 9 7 a n d p e r m i t s t h e t r i a l j u d g e t o c u m u l a t e s e n t e n c e s

f o r c h i l d s e x u a l a b u s e o f f e n s e s

. H o w e v e r

, t h i s e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e s o n l y t o a n o f f e n s e t h a t 9

o c c u r s a f t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

. 1 0

Section 3.03(a) rea ds: 8

When the acc used i s found guilty of m ore than one offense arising out of t he same

criminal episode prosec uted in a single criminal ac tion, a sentenc e for eac h offe nse

for which he has been found g uilty shall be pronounce d. Ex cept as provided by

Subsection (b), the se ntence s shall run conc urre ntly

.

Section 3.03(b)( 2)(A) rea ds: 9

I f t h e ac cu sed is found g uilty of more than one offe nse arising out of the same

criminal episode, t h e s entences may run concur rently or consec utively if eac h

sentenc e is for a conviction of

. . . an offe nse

. . . under Section 33.021 or an offe nse

under Section 21.02, 21.11

, 2 2

. 0 1 1

, 22.021, 25.02, or 43.25 committed ag ainst a

v i ctim y oung er than 17 y ear s of ag e at the time of the commission of t h e o ff en s e

reg ardle ss of whether the acc used is convicted of violations of the same section more

than once or is convicted of violations of more than one section[.]

Act of June 13, 1997, 75th L eg ., R.S. ch. 667, § 7. That provision states: 1 0

(a) The c hang e in law made by this Ac t applies only to an offe nse committed on or

afte r the eff

ective date of this Act. For purposes of this section, an offe nse is

committed be fore the eff

ective date of this Ac t if any element of the offe nse occur sBonilla Pag e 7

I n E x p a r t e B a h e n a

, w e a d d r e s s e d a s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e e v i d e n c e s h o w e d m u l t i p l e 1 1

a c t s o f s e x u a l m o l e s t a t i o n o f a c h i l d t h a t “ o c c u r r e d s o m e t i m e b e t w e e n S e p t e m b e r 2 1

, 1 9 9 3

,

a n d u p t o a t l e a s t S e p t e m b e r 2 0

, 1 9 9 8

. ” I n t h a t c a s e

, t h e d e f e n d a n t c l a i m e d t h a t h i s c o u n s e l 1 2

w e r e i n e f

f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o c h a l l e n g e t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s s t a c k i n g o r d e r b e c a u s e o n e o f t h e

i n d i c t m e n t s a l l e g e d a n a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f f e n s e t h a t o c c u r r e d “ o n o r a b o u t J u l y 1

,

1 9 9 6

, ” a n d t h a t i s a d a t e b e f o r e t h e 1 9 9 7 a m e n d m e n t b e c a m e e f f e c t i v e

. W e c o n c l u d e d t h a t

1 3

t h e e v i d e n c e s h o w e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d s e x u a l l y m o l e s t e d t h e c h i l d o n m u l t i p l e

o c c a s i o n s b e t w e e n 1 9 9 3 a n d S e p t e m b e r 2 0

, 1 9 9 8

, a n d h a d c o m m i t t e d “ t h e s e c h a r g e d

o f f e n s e s b e f o r e a n d a f

t e r S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

. ” W e n o t e d t h a t s e v e r a l c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s h a d 1 4

u p h e l d t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s c u m u l a t i o n o r d e r i f “ s o m e e v i d e n c e ” s h o w e d t h a t t h e o f f e n s e s

o c c u r r e d a f

t e r S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

. W e h e l d t h a t c o u n s e l c o u l d n o t b e c a l l e d i n e f f e c t i v e f o r 1 5

f a i l i n g t o c h a l l e n g e t h e s t a c k i n g o r d e r b e c a u s e t h e i s s u e o f s t a c k e d s e n t e n c e s i n c a s e s i n

w h i c h t h e e v i d e n c e s h o w e d s e x u a l o f f e n s e s b o t h b e f

o r e a n d a f

t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e

befor e the e ffe ctive date

. (b) An offe nse committed befor e the eff ective date of this Act is cover ed by the law

in eff ect when the offe nse was committed, and the former law is continued in eff ect

for that pur

pose.

195 S.W .3d 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 1 1

Id. at 706. 1 2

Id. 1 3

Id. at 706-07. 1 4

Id. at 707 n.7 (citing Bates v. State

, 164 S.W .3d 928, 930–31 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no 1 5

pet.); Dale v. State, 170 S.W .3d 797, 800–01 (Tex. App.–For t Worth 2005, no pet.); Hendrix v.

State, 150 S.W .3d 839, 852–54 (Tex. App.–Houston [14t h Dist.] 2004, pet. ref ’d); Owens v. State,

96 S.W .3d 668, 671–72 (Tex. App.–Austin 2003, no pet.); Y ebio v. State, 87 S.W .3d 193, 195–96

(Tex. App.–Texarkana

2002, pet. re f’d) ).Bonilla Pag e 8

a m e n d m e n t t o S e c t i o n 3

. 0 3 w a s “ a n u n s e t t l e d a r e a o f l a w

. ” 1 6

I n He n d r i

x v

. S t a t e

, f

o r e x a m p l e

, t h e F o u r t e e n t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t

, a l t h o u g h 1 7

t h e i n d i c t m e n t a l l e g e d a n o f f e n s e d a t e “ o n o r a b o u t A u g u s t 3

, 1 9 9 7

, ” t h e t r i a l j u d g e h a d

d i s c r e t i o n t o c u m u l a t e t h e s e n t e n c e s i n a c h i l d a b u s e c a s e “ a s l o n g a s t h e r e w a s s o m e

e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e o f

f e n s e s o c c u r r e d a f

t e r S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

. ” 1 8

T h i s i s t h e s a m e “ s o m e e v i d e n c e ” s t a n d a r d t h a t w e u s e d i n M i l l e r v

. S t a t e

, i n 1 9

a d d r e s s i n g t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s d i s c r e t i o n t o c u m u l a t e a c u r r e n t s e n t e n c e w i t h o l d e r o n e s

. W e

e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e r e m u s t b e “ s o m e e v i d e n c e ” l i n k i n g t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t

. 2 0

V a r i o u s c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s h a v e u s e d M i l l e r ’ s “ s o m e e v i d e n c e ” l a n g u a g e w h e n a d d r e s s i n g

t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s d i s c r e t i o n t o c u m u l a t e s e n t e n c e s i n c h i l d s e x u a l a b u s e c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e

o f f e n s e s w e r e a l l e g e d t o h a v e o c c u r r e d b e f o r e o r a f t e r S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

. T h e i n d i c t m e n t

( o r j u d g m e n t ) d a t e i s n o t d e t e r m i n a t i v e

. T h e e v i d e n c e d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l j u d g e h a s

d i s c r e t i o n t o c u m u l a t e s e n t e n c e s

.

F o r e x a m p l e

, i n O w e n s v

. S t a t e

, t h e S t a t e p r o v e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d 2 1

n u m e r o u s a c t s o f c h i l d s e x u a l a b u s e

, s o m e o f t h e m o c c u r r i n g b e f o r e S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

, a n d

s o m e o f t h e m o c c u r r i n g a f t e r t h a t d a t e

. T h e c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s c l a i m t h a t t h e

Bahena , 195 S.W .3d at 707. 1 6

150 S.W .3d 839 (Tex. App.–Houston [14t h Dist.] 2004, pet. re f’d)

. 1 7

Id. at 853. 1 8

33 S.W .3d 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 1 9

Id. at 261. 2 0

96 S.W .3d 668 (Tex. App.–Austin 2003, no pet.). 2 1Bonilla Pag e 9

S t a t e w a s r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e

, b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

, t h a t e a c h e l e m e n t o f e a c h o f f e n s e

o c c u r r e d a f

t e r S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

, t o u p h o l d t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s c u m u l a t i o n o r d e r

. I n s t e a d

, t h e

t r i a l j u d g e h a d t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o s t a c k t h e s e n t e n c e s a s l o n g a s “ t h e r e [ w a s ] s o m e e v i d e n c e

t h a t t h e o f

f e n s e s o c c u r r e d a f

t e r S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

. ” 2 2

W e a g r e e w i t h t h o s e c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s t h a t h a v e h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e h a s d i s c r e t i o n

t o s t a c k s e n t e n c e s u n d e r S e c t i o n 3

. 0 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) i f t h e r e i s “ s o m e e v i d e n c e ” t h a t t h e o f f e n s e s

o c c u r r e d a f

t e r S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

. W i t h t h a t b a c k g r o u n d

, w e t u r n t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e

.

I I I

.

A p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e 1 9 9 5 d a t e s e t o u t i n t h e j u d g m e n t i s d i s p o s i t i v e

. H e a r g u e s

t h a t t h e S t a t e a l l e g e d a n a c t t h a t o c c u r r e d “ o n o r a b o u t ” J a n u a r y 1

, 1 9 9 5

, a n d t h e j u d g m e n t

r e c i t e s t h a t d a t e a s w e l l

. A n d

, b e c a u s e t h e r e w a s “ s o m e e v i d e n c e ” t h a t a p p e l l a n t b e g a n

s e x u a l l y a b u s i n g D

. B

. b e f o r e S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

, t h e o f f e n s e s “ o c c u r r e d ” b e f

o r e t h e e f f e c t i v e

d a t e o f t h e a m e n d m e n t

, a n d t h e r e f o r e t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n c u m u l a t i n g t h e s e n t e n c e s f o r

a b u s i n g D

. B

. w i t h t h o s e f o r a b u s i n g M

. B

. B u t a p p e l l a n t n e v e r m e n t i o n e d t h i s “ o n o r 2 3

Id. at 672 (noting that Section 3.03 “does not spe cify an evidentiar y burden to trig g er the 2 2

court’s authority to cumulate sentenc es”) ; see also Dale v. State

, 170 S.W .3d 797

, 801 n.2 (Tex.

App.–For t Worth 2005, no pet

. ) (noting that defe ndant’s sexual abuse continued from 1991 until

1998, and he did not contend that the sexual assaults did not continue afte r September 1, 1997);

Y ebio v. State

, 87 S.W .3d 193, 195 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (holding that consec utive

sentenc es wer e improper beca use there was no evidenc e that child sex u al ab u s e continued afte r

September 1, 1997, e ven thoug h indictment alleg ed off ense da te of Septembe r 5, 1997).

Appellant arg ues that Article 42.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedur e mandates that “the 2 3

sentenc e serve d shall be based o n t h e i n fo rm ation contained in the judgme nt” and beca use the

judgme nt se ts out an offe nse date of J anuar y 1, 2005, the sentenc es cannot be cumulated. But this

arg ument could be equally used by the State: Be cause the judgme nt order s the sentenc es t o be

cumulated, the “on or about” offe nse date is simply copied from the indictment, but it does not mean

any thing more t h an s o m e date within the statute of limit ations and befor e the indictment. See

Sledge v. State

, 953 S.W .2d 253, 255–56 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Thomas v. State, 753 S.W .2d 688,Bonilla Pag e 10

a b o u t ” d a t e i s s u e i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t

.

U n d e r R u l e 3 3

. 1 o f t h e R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e

, i t w a s a p p e l l a n t ’ s o b l i g a t i o n 2 4

t o c o m p l a i n i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t t h e c u m u l a t i o n o r d e r w a s i m p r o p e r b e c a u s e t h e j u d g e c o u l d

n o t h a v e f

o u n d t h a t t h e j u r y c o n v i c t e d h i m f o r o f f e n s e s a g a i n s t D

. B

. t h a t o c c u r r e d a f t e r

S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

, t h e d a t e t h e c u m u l a t i o n s t a t u t e w e n t i n t o e f f e c t

. A s w e h a v e e x p l a i n e d

,

B o t h T e x a s R u l e o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e 3 3

. 1 a n d T e x a s R u l e o f E v i d e n c e 1 0 3

a r e “ j u d g e

- p r o t e c t i n g ” r u l e s o f e r r o r p r e s e r v a t i o n

. T h e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e o f b o t h

r u l e s i s t h a t o f “ p a r t y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

. ” T h u s

, t h e p a r t y c o m p l a i n i n g o n a p p e a l

( w h e t h e r i t b e t h e S t a t e o r t h e d e f e n d a n t ) a b o u t a t r i a l c o u r t ’ s a d m i s s i o n

,

e x c l u s i o n

, o r s u p p r e s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e “ m u s t

, a t t h e e a r l i e s t o p p o r t u n i t y

, h a v e

d o n e e v e r y t h i n g n e c e s s a r y t o b r i n g t o t h e j u d g e ’ s a t t e n t i o n t h e e v i d e n c e r u l e

[ o r s t a t u t e ] i n q u e s t i o n a n d i t s p r e c i s e a n d p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e e v i d e n c e

i n q u e s t i o n

. ” 2 5

A p p e l l a n t o b

j e c t e d a t t r i a l t o t h e j u d g e ’ s c u m u l a t i o n o r d e r

, b u t h e f a i l e d t o o f

f e r a n y l e g a l o r

692 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).

Rule 33.1(a) of the Te x as Rules of Appe llate Proce dure r eads: 2 4

As a prer equisite to prese nting a complaint for appellate revie w, the rec ord must show that:

(1) the complaint was made to the t rial cour t b y a timely reque st, objection, or mot ion

that:

(A) stated the g rounds for the ruling that the complaining party soug ht from the

trial court with suffi ci en t s p ecif icity to make the trial court awa re of the

complaint, unless the spec ific g rounds wer e appa rent fr om the context; and

(B ) complied with the require ments of the Tex as R u l es o f C i v i l or Criminal

Evidence or the Te x as Rules of Civil or Appellate Proc edure ; and

(2) the trial cour

t:

(A) ruled on the r equest, objec tion, or motion, either expressly or implicitly ; or

(B ) ref

used to rule on the reque st, objection, or motion, and the complaining party

objected to the r efusa l.

Martinez v. State

, 91 S.W .3d 331, 335-36 (Tex. C ri m

. App. 2002) (quoting 1 Stephen 2 5

Goode, et al., T E X A S P R A C T I C E : G U I D E T O T H E T E X A S R U L E S O F E V I D E N C E : C I V I L A N D C R I M I N A L

, § 103.2, at 14 (2d ed. 1993)); see also Rey na v. State

, 168 S.W .3d 173, 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

(“The basis for party responsibility is, among other things, Appellate Rule 33.1. I t provides that as

a prer equisite to prese nting a complaint for appellate revie w, the rec ord must show that the party

‘stated the g rounds for the ruling that [he] soug ht from the trial court with sufficie nt specific ity to

make the tr ial court a

war e of the complaint.’”)

.Bonilla Pag e 11

f a c t u a l b a s i s f

o r h i s o b j e c t i o n

. H e j u s t a s k e d t h e j u d g e n o t t o g r a n t t h e S t a t e ’ s m o t i o n t o

2 6

c u m u l a t e t h e s e n t e n c e s

.

A t a n y r a t e

, a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t s h o w

, e i t h e r a t t r i a l o r o n a p p e a l

, t h a t t h e j u r y c o u l d n o t

h a v e f o u n d h i m g u i l t y o f a n o f f e n s e t h a t o c c u r r e d a f

t e r S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

. T h e r e w a s a m p l e

e v i d e n c e t h a t a p p e l l a n t s e x u a l l y a b u s e d D

. B

. n u m e r o u s t i m e s b e f o r e S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

, a n d

n u m e r o u s t i m e s a f

t e r t h a t d a t e

. A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t a s k t h e S t a t e t o e l e c t a s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t

, 2 7

a n d t h e “ o n o r a b o u t ” d a t e o f J a n u a r y 1

, 1 9 9 5

– a l l e g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t

– c o v e r e d a l l a c t s o f

s e x u a l m o l e s t a t i o n t h a t o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n 1 9 9 4 a n d A p r i l 1 6

, 2 0 0 9

, t h e d a t e o f t h e

i n d i c t m e n t

. T h e j u r y w a s n e v e r a s k e d t o s p e c i f y a p a r t i c u l a r i n c i d e n t o r d a t e i n f i n d i n g h i m 2 8

g u i l t y o f t w o c o u n t s o f s e x u a l l y a b u s i n g D

. B

. T h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t t h u s c o v e r e d t h e e n t i r e t i m e

a p p e l l a n t a b u s e d D

. B

. a n d a l l o f t h e v a r i o u s i n c i d e n t s

, a n d d o u b l e

- j e o p a r d y p r i n c i p l e s w o u l d

p r e v e n t t h e S t a t e f

r o m p r o s e c u t i n g a p p e l l a n t f o r a n y o t h e r i n c i d e n t s c o v e r e d b y t h e

Having failed to make a specific objection and explain the basi s for that objection, 2 6

appellant forf

eited err or on appea l unless the s p ec i fi c objection and its basis was obvious to the

judge

. See T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 33.1(a) (1)( A); Clark v. State

, 365 S.W .3d 333, 339 (Tex. Crim. App.

2012) (“While no ‘hy

per- technica l or formalistic use of words or phrase s’ is require d in order for an

objection to prese rve an err or, the objecting party must still ‘let the trial judge know what he wants,

why he thi nks h e i s enti tled to it, and to do so clea rly enoug h for the judge to understand him at a

time when the judg e is in the proper position t o do something a bout it.’”) (c itations omi tted).

See O’Neal v. State

, 746 S.W .2d 769, 771 n.3 (Tex. C ri m. App. 1988) (abse nt a request 2 7

by the defe ndant, “the State is not require d to make an elec tion” of what specific sexual act it is

rely ing on to support conviction when the evidenc e shows that the defe ndant has committed the same

act of sexual abuse ag ainst the same victim multiple tim es).

See Sledge v. State

, 953 S.W .2d 253, 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (“I t is w ell settled that 2 8

the ‘on or about’ lang uag e of an indictment allows the State to prove a date other than t h e o n e

alleg ed in the indictment as long as the date is anter ior to the prese ntment of the indictment and

within the statutory

limit ation period.” ).Bonilla Pag e 12

i n d i c t m e n t t h a t h a d o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n 1 9 9 4 a n d 2 0 0 9

. 2 9

I f a p p e l l a n t w i s h e d t o p r e v e n t t h e t r i a l j u d g e f r o m c u m u l a t i n g t h e s e n t e n c e s

, h e h a d

t o o b j e c t i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d a r g u e t h a t ( 1 ) h e h a d r e q u e s t e d t h e S t a t e t o e l e c t a s i n g l e

i n c i d e n t t o s u b m i t t o t h e j u r y f o r e a c h c o u n t a n d t h a t

, a s a r e s u l t

, t h e S t a t e s u b m i t t e d o n l y

i n c i d e n t s t h a t h a d o c c u r r e d b e f o r e S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7 ; ( 2 ) t h e r e w a s s o m e l e g a l f l a w i n t h e

S t a t e ’ s “ o n o r a b o u t ” l a n g u a g e i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t ; o r ( 3 ) t h e r e w a s n o t “ s o m e e v i d e n c e ” t o

s u p p o r t a f

i n d i n g t h a t a p p e l l a n t c o m m i t t e d t h e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e s a f t e r S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

. 3 0

See Cosio v. State

, 353 S.W .3d 766, 776 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (stating “A defe ndant’s 2 9

decision to elec t or not elec t is a strateg ic choice made afte r weig hing the above considerations,” and

noting that, when the defe ndant does not elec t a specific incident, “it will be impossibl e to deter mine

which particula

r incident of criminal conduct that the jury was unanimous about, [and] the State will

be jeopa rdy -bar red f rom later pr osecuting a def endant f or any of the off enses pr esente d at trial”)

.

See Hendrix v. S t ate

, 150 S.W .3d 839, 853 (Tex. App.–Houston [14t h Dist.] 2004, pet. 3 0

ref ’d) (althoug h indictment alleg ed an o ff en s e date “on or about” Aug ust 3, 1997, trial judge had

discretion to cumulate sentence s in child abuse case “as l o n g as there was some evidenc e that the

offe nses occur

red afte r September 1, 1997”); Owens v. State

, 9 6 S .W.3d 668, 671-72 (Tex.

App.–Austin 2003, no pet.) (re jecting defe ndant’s com

p la in t th a t St a te w a s require d to prove, bey ond

a rea sonable doubt, that eac h of the three char g ed offe nses occur red afte r September 1, 1997; stating

that “the tria l court has discr etion to cumulate sente nces under section 3.03(b) when ther e is some

evidenc e that the offe nses occur red afte r September 1, 1997”); Dale v. State

, 170 S.W .3d 797, 801

n.2 (Tex. App.–For t W o rth 2005, no pet.) (noting that “in order for the trial court to impose

consec utive sentenc ing under penal code section 3.03(b), there had t o b e s ome evidenc e that

Appellant committed the offe nses afte r September 1,1997, the eff ective date of this section.

. . . The

State offe red evidenc e that the offe nses occur red fre quently

, beg inning shortly afte r Appellant and

Triplet marrie d in Aug ust of 1991 and ending in 1998. Appellant does not c ontend that the sexual

assaults did not continue afte r September 1, 1997.”). On the other hand, if there is no evidenc e that

any of the incidents of child sexual abuse occur red afte r September 1, 1997, then the trial judge does

not have discretion to cumulate the sentenc es. Y ebio v. State

, 87 S

. W .3d 193, 196 (Tex.

App.–Texarkana

2002, pet. re f’d)

. A cumulation order in a case in which there is “no evidenc e” to support a fin d i n g that the

sexual abuse occur

red afte r September 1, 1997, is unauthorized, and results in an illega l sentenc e not

subject to forf

eiture. LaPorte v. State

, 840 S.W .2d 412, 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). L ike a doublejeopar dy violation appar ent on the fac e of the rec ord, an unau t h o ri z ed cumulation order may be

raised for the first time o n ap p eal or collater al attack. See Gonzalez v. State

, 8 S.W .3d 640, 643

(Tex. Crim. App. 2000).Bonilla Pag e 13

W e h a v e e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s d e c i s i o n t o c u m u l a t e s e n t e n c e s f o r c h i l d

s e x u a l o f f e n s e s u n d e r S e c t i o n 3

. 0 3 d o e s n o t v i o l a t e t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s r i g h t t o a j u r y d e c i s i o n

o r h i s r i g h t t o d u e p r o c e s s b e c a u s e i t g e n e r a l l y d o e s n o t “ t u r n o n a n y d i s c r e t e o r p a r t i c u l a r

f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t o n t h e j u d g e ’ s p a r t

. ” H o w e v e r

, i n c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s 3 1

c o m m i t t e d c h i l d s e x u a l a b u s e b o t h b e f o r e a n d a f

t e r t h e e f

f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e s t a t u t o r y

p r o v i s i o n

, t h e d e f

e n d a n t m a y r e q u e s t t h e S t a t e t o e l e c t a s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t a n d

, i f t h e S t a t e

e l e c t s a n i n c i d e n t b e f

o r e S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

, a n d t h e j u r y f i n d s t h e d e f

e n d a n t g u i l t y o f t h a t

s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t

, t h a t s e n t e n c e m a y n o t b e c u m u l a t e d w i t h a n o t h e r s e n t e n c e

. O f c o u r s e i f

t h e d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t s a n e l e c t i o n

, t h e S t a t e m a y t r y t h e d e f e n d a n t a g a i n f

o r o n e o f t h e p o s t

1 9 9 7 i n c i d e n t s a n d c u m u l a t e t h a t s e n t e n c e w i t h t h e e a r l i e r o n e s

.

H e r e

, t h e r e w a s n o t j u s t “ s o m e e v i d e n c e ” t h a t t h e s e x u a l a b u s e a g a i n s t D

. B

. c o n t i n u e d

a f t e r S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7 ; t h e r e w a s o v e r w h e l m i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t i t d i d

. B e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t d i d

n o t r e q u e s t t h e S t a t e t o e l e c t a s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t

, a n d t h e S t a t e d i d n o t s p e c i f y a n i n c i d e n t t h a t

o c c u r r e d b e f

o r e S e p t e m b e r 1

, 1 9 9 7

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t a b u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n c u m u l a t i n g

t h e s e n t e n c e s f

o r a b u s i n g D

. B

. w i t h t h o s e f o r a b u s i n g h i s y o u n g e r b r o t h e r

.

I n s h o r t

, w e a g r e e w i t h t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s t h a t t h e “ o n o r a b o u t ” d a t e l i s t e d i n t h e

i n d i c t m e n t a n d i n t h e j u d g m e n t d o e s n o t d e t e r m i n e t h e a c t u a l d a t e o f t h e o f f e n s e f o r p u r p o s e s

o f c u m u l a t i n g a s e n t e n c e u n d e r S e c t i o n 3

. 0 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A )

. W e t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t

o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

.

D e l i v e r e d : N o v e m b e r 1 9

, 2 0 1 4

P u b l i s h

Barrow v. State , 207 S.W .3d 377, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

3 1