NO. 07-06 -033 7-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU LY9, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ GENE EDW ARD KEMP, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; TH NO . 14, 546- A; H ON ORABLE HA L M IN ER , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Gene Edw ard Kemp, appeal s from th e tri al cour t’ s d eter minat ion to procee d wit h adjudi cat ion and an as ses sment of tw elv e y ears c onfinement in the Tex as Depa rtme nt of

Cri min al Justice, Institu tiona l Di v ision an d a f ine of $2,0 00. W e w ill dism iss the a ppeal
. Back g ro und Appel lan t ent ered a ple a of g uil ty to the c har ge o f

p o ss ess ion of a c ontroll ed subs tanc e w it h i ntentto del iv er w ith in a d rug free z one and w as pla ced on defer re d2

adj udi cat ion for a p e rio d of ei g ht y ears. N o appea l w as tak en from t he i nit ial pl ea. Subs eq uentl y , t he St ate f il ed a moti on to proceed w it h adj udi cat ion , w hic h w as heard by the tr ial cour

t on Jul y 11, 2006. Appel lan t ent ered a ple a of not tr ue to al l parag ra phs of the mot ion to proceed
. After hear ing the ev ide nce, t h e tr ial co urt i nit ial ly found thatthe all eg ati ons in parag ra phs one and three of the moti on to proceed w ere tr ue and proceed ed to c onduc t a separate punis hment heari ng . At the concl usi on of the puni shmenthear ing the trial cou rt anno unce d he had dete rmine d tha t app ellanthad v iolate d on ly the f irst all eg ati on. The tri al cour t sentenc ed appe ll ant t o tw elv e y ears c onfinement and a fine of $2,000. Dur ing the hear ing on t he moti on to proceed , the Stat e offered ev ide nce of a fail ed ur i na l y s i s to s ho w ap pe l l an t’ s c on ti nu ed u s e of m et ha mp he ta mi ne i n v i ol at i on o f hi s t er ms and cond itions of

the ord er grant ing deferred adju dicatio n. E v iden ce of t he failed u rinaly sis cons is ted o f the St ate’ s E x hib it#1, the c hai n of cus tody doc umentati on to M edTox L a b o ra t o r i e s i n M i n n e a p o l i s , M i n n e s o t a , a n d S t a t e ’ s E x h i b i t# 2 , t h e n o t i c e o f f i l i n g o f a busi ness re cord w it h the acc ompany ing lab orator y re por t from the t estof a ur ine sa mple. The appel lan t al so tes ti fied dur ing the adju d ica ti o n phas e of the proceed ing s. D ur ing cross-e xami nati on, a ppel lan t admi tted that he had prov ide d a n umber of other

ur ine sampl es that all eg edl y

tes ted p osi ti v e for v ar iou s d ru g s. H ow ev er , app ell ant c lai med that all of the d ru g tes ts w ere flaw ed i n one manner or another

and shoul d notbe c onsi dered. Other than the faile d ur ina ly si s suppo rt ed by the ex hib it s, dur in g th e pu n ishm ent phase of the p ro ceedi ng , t he tr ial co urt hea rd appel lan t’ s p ro bati on officer tes ti fy that3

appel lan t had faile d nin e other dr ug tes ts. Base d upon all of t he tes ti mony it heard, the t ri al cour t s entenc ed appe ll ant t o c onfinement for tw elv e y ears a nd a fine of $2,00 0. App ellantconte nds th at th e trial court com mitt ed reversible error in three pa rticulars: 1) i n c onsi der ing the re sul ts of dr ug tes ts w hic h w ere notbefore the c our t as ev ide nce on puni sh m e nt, 2) by

co nsi derati on of sc ien ti fic e v ide nce w hic h w as admitted w it hout a hear ing on t he reli abi li ty of the e v iden ce , a n d 3 ) th e refusal to c onduc t a hear ing on t he adm issibility

of scientif ic ev iden ce sho uld be rev iew ed a s f und am ent al error despite article 42. 12 § 5(b) of

the T exas Code o f

C riminal Proce dure . W e disagree w ith ap pellan t’s is sues and order

the appeal di smi ss ed. Ana ly sis Ini ti all y , w e not e tha t t he r ig ht of ap p e a l in a c ri minal ca se is a s tatut or y r ig ht c o n t ro ll e d b y t h e le gi s la t ive gr a n t o f t h e ri gh t
. S e e P h yn e s v. S t a t e , 8 2 8 S
. W
. 2 d 1 , 2 (T e x. Cr im.A pp. 1 992)
. Fur

ther , as pointed out in Phy nes the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on does not req uire a sta te to prov ide appel lat e c our ts or a r ig ht t o appea l a c ri minal co nv icti on. Id., ci ti ng M cKan e v . D ursto n, 15 3 U .S. 684, 687- 688, 14 S. Ct . 913, 38 L.Ed. 867 (1894)
. The sta tut e i n q uest ion , ar ti cl e 42. 12 § 5( b) of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re , specif ically

state s: On a violation of

a cond ition of

comm uni t y

supe rv ision. . . the defend antis en ti tl ed to a he ar i ng l i mi te d to th e de te r mi na ti on by th e c ou rt of w he th er it proceed s w it h an adj udi cat ion of g uil t on the or ig ina l charg e. No appeal may be ta ken f ro m t h is dete rmina tion. Af ter an a djud ication of g uilt, all proceed ing s, inc lud ing as ses sment of punis hment, pronounc ement of sent ence, g ra nti ng of communi ty su per v ision, an d defendant’ s a ppeal cont inu e as i f the adj udi cat ion of g uil t had not been de ferred .
. . .4

T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art 42. 12 § 5( b) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 006)
. A ccordin g ly , t he sta tutor y sc heme does not per mit an appeal of the d eci si on by the tr ial co urt t o adj udi cat e. In ap pel lan t’ s first is sue, he arg ues that the t ri al cour t w ro ng fully

co nsi dered puni shmentev ide nce and t hat t his i ss ue is subj ect to appeal
. The ev ide nce compl ain ed of dealtw it h oth er

fail ed dr ug test s b y a ppel lan t and w as firs t present ed dur ing the adj udi cat ion phas e of the tr ial
. Dur ing the cross -e x aminat ion of a p p ell ant, the S tate inq uired abou t a n u m b e r o f fail ed dr ug tes ts. Ap pel lan t den ied rememberi ng the dr ug tes ts, y et i n al l but tw o of the occ asi ons in q uest ion , upon further ex aminat ion by

the Stat e, appel lan t admi tted he remembere d tel li ng the probati on officer there was an e x cus e for w hy the tes ts tur ned out posit iv e. Appel lan t c ontends thi s e v ide nce canno t be cons ide re d a s i ti s a n a t t e mp tb y

t h e S t a t e t o p ro v e a fa c ti n i s sue bythe cr os s - e x a mi n a t i o n o f a w it ness reg ardin g hi s d eni al of the fact in q uest ion
. See W all v . Stat e, 417 S.W .2d 5 9, 61 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 67). Accord ingly , app ellantconte nds th at th e trial court w rongf ully c o n s id e re d t h is t e s t im o n y. In attempt ing to asc ertai n w hether or not the i ss ue i s appeal abl e, w e first cons ide r the p ur pose for w hic h the Sta te of fered the ev ide nce. D ur ing di re ct ex aminat ion , app ell ant te s ti fi ed t ha t, d esp i te t he M ed Tox rep or t, h e ha d no t be en u s i ng me th am ph et am i ne . To prov e thi s p oin t, he te sti fied th at he w as tes ted byhi s e mploy er i n D ecember

pr ior to tak ing the job and w as hired. Addition ally , app ellanttestif ied that he w as teste d again in Febru ary and retained hi s j ob
. The ob v i ou s i mp or t of th es e q ue s ti on s w as th at th e te s ts g i v en inTh e record reveals thatapp ellantw as no t asked the questio n of w hat t h e test 1 re sul ts w ere, on ly

thathe w as hired after the Dec ember

tes t and retai ned after the Febr uar y tes t. 5 Decem ber an d Febru aryw ere ne gativ e for me tha mp het am ine use
. La t e r d uring direct 1 ex aminat ion , app ell ant t est ified thathe fel t l ik e he h ad g iv en al l he had to hi s p ro bati on. During cross-examina tion, the Sta te w ent into the other failed d rug tests, over app ellant ’s obj ect ion thatthey

w ere notdi sc uss ed nor w as any ev ide nce of them produce d dur ing the Sta t e ’ s c a s e . Th e t r i a l c o u rt o v e r r u l e d t h e o bj e c t i o n w i t h t h e r u l i n g t h a t a ppel lan t had opened the d oor

to thi s l ine of q uest ion s b y referr ing to hav ing gi v en probati on hi s a ll
. On appeal , appell ant has not contes ted the tri al cour t’ s rul ing on t he obj ect ion to admis si bil ity of the pri or

drug test ev ide nce. From the cont ext of the ci rc umstan ces of

the re cei pt of the tes ti mony , i t i s c lea r that the t ri al cour t r ule d proper ly

thatappel lan t had opened the door to t he admi ss ion of the fai led dr ug tes ts. W heel er v . St ate, 67 S. W .3d 8 79, 8 85- 86 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2002)
. It is apparent t o the co urt t hat t he tr ial co urt proper ly admi tted the ev ide nce dur ing the adj udi cat ion phas e for the p ur poses ex press ed i n the record. Hav ing dete rmi ned t hat t he te sti mony w as admitted in the adjudi cat ion phase unde r a proper theo ry , our

i nq uir y bec omes w hether

appel lan t’ s c lai m of error di re ctl y and dis ti nct ly rela ted to punis hment rat her than to the deci si on to adj udi cat e. Hog ans v . St ate, 176 S. W .3d 8 29, 8 30- 31 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)
. Notw it hst andi ng the sta tements by the tr ial co urt atth e c oncl usi on of the puni shmenthear ing , t he ev ide nce in q uest ion di d not re lat e to the s entenc e i n q uest ion direct ly and dis ti nct ly
. Id. at 834. That the tes ti mony of faile d dr ug tes ts cont ri buted to punis hment mayw ell be tr ue; how ev er , this is not t he te st. Id. Al l ev ide nce o f

f e re d dur ing an a dju dic ati on hear ing w il l affector i mpact puni shment
.6

Id. at 83 5. The fact t hat e v ide nce maybe p ro bati v e to both the d eci si on to adj udi cat e and to th e asse ssme nt of

an ap prop riate punishm ent doe s not convert adju dicatio n evidence int o puni shment ev ide nce. Id. Acc ordin g ly , w e dis mis s a ppel lan t’ s first is sue conc lud ing that the e v ide nce of t he faile d dr ug tes ts did not re lat e direct ly and dis ti nct ly

to sent enci ng and, therefore, is nonapp eal abl e. Next, appel lan t pos it s t hat t he refusal of the tr ial cour t to condu ct a hear ing on t he sc ien ti fic reli abi li ty

of the d ru g tes t admi tted dur ing adj udi cat ion sh oul d be re v iew ed unde r a fundame n ta l er ro r sta ndard. How ev er , app ell ant h as ci ted t he c our t t o no cas es that w oul d per mit us to c onsi der thi s i ss ue i n l ig ht of the l eg is lat iv e det er minat ion thatthere be no appe al from a de ci si on to adj udica te
. A s t he s econd and thi rd i ss ues ra is ed by appel lan t dea l w it h ev ide nti ar y matte rs thatarose dur in g the adj udi cat ion phas e of the proceed ing s, the c our

t is wit h o u t juri sdi cti on to hear them and t hey

are di smi ss ed. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art 42. 12 § 5(b) (Vernon Supp . 200 6). Con cl usi on Appel lan t’ s a ppeal i s d is mis sed for w ant o f jur is dicti on.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.