NO. 07-06 -012 4-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 NE 12, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ GUADALUP E VAL DEZ, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 25 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; ST NO . 50, 139- C; H ON ORABLE PATRI CK A. PIR TLE, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QU IN N, C .J. , and C AM PBELL and H AN CO CK , J J. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Guadal upe Va ldez , w as charg ed by i ndi ctmentw it h the offense of aggravated se x ual assa ult of a child, en han ced b y

tw o prior felon y

convictions. Th e jury conv icted a ppel lan t of the charg e and found both enhancement all eg ati ons w ere tr ue. The tr ial co urt s entenc ed appe ll ant t o l ife i n the T e xas D epar tment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ceIns ti tuti onal D iv is ion
. It is from t his se ntenc e tha t app ell ant a ppeal s.2

Throug h two i ss ues appel lan t al leg es that the tr ial cour t c ommitt ed rev ersi ble er ro r dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce phase i n: ( 1) admitti ng ev ide nce of extraneous of fenses, and (2) ad mi tt i ng e v i de nc e th ata pp el l an t ha d prev i ou s l y b ee n i n pr i s on . W e affi r m. Factual Bac kg ro und Appel lan t i s a ll eg ed to hav e c ommitt ed a sex ual assaul t aga ins t a chi ld, M.A. F. , w ho w as 13 y ears of

a ge a t the t ime o f

t he assau lt. O n the day before the initial sex ual con tact w it h appel lan t, M. A.F . had been w alk ing home w hen h e f irst met appe ll ant. Thro ug h a dis cus si on th at fo llo w ed, a ppel lan t l ear ned t hat M .A.F . had broken his sk ateboard. Appel lan t offered t o buy M .A.F . a new

sk ateboard
. T he next day , M .A.F . w ent t o appel lan t’ s house and smoked a joi nt of m ar ij uana and then w ent w it h appel lan t t o anot her loc ati on w here appel lan t met some p eopl e and sol d the m marijua na. T h a t same day appel lan t bou g ht a sk atebo a rd f o r M .A.F
. That after noon M .A.F . s kat eboarded t o appel lan t’ s h ouse. W hil e M .A.F . w as there, ap pel lan t s ug g est ed th at i nst ead of pay ing for the skateb oard M.A.F. shou ld allow app ellantt o giv e him o ral se x , w hich in fact did occur. T he relat ionsh ip betw een M.A.F. and app ellantc o n tinue d f rom m id-March 200 4 un til M.A.F. w as locked up in the coun ty det ent ion center on May 21, 200 4. It w as du ring his detent ion thatM .A.F . first made an outc ry about the sex ual as saul ts by appel lan t. M. A.F. a d vised deten ti on c enter st aff member , LaS honda N ev els , abo ut t he inciden ts on Octo ber 27 , 200 4. Lat er on th e sam e da y and again on th e 28 of Octob er, th 2004, M. A.F . g av e s tatement s t o a d etecti v e aboutthe ass aul ts.Further citatio n to T exas Rule of Ev iden ce w ill be b y

“Rule ___”. 1 3 Appel lan t w as ar re ste d on the c harg es on Oct ober 28, 2004. After hi s a rrest , and w hil e i n c ust ody , app ell ant w aiv ed hi s “ Mi ra nda” r ig hts and g a ve a vo luntar y st atement admitti ng the se xua l a ss a ult s. The v olu ntar ine ss of the s tatementi s n ot c hal len g ed on appeal
. By tw o i ss ues, appel lan t c hal len g es the tri al cour t’ s a dmis si on of cer

tai n ev ide nce. App ellantconte nds th at th e ad mission of the referen ced e v iden ce w as reversi ble error. Standa rd of Rev iew A tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to admi t ev ide nce is rev iew ed unde r an abus e of dis creti on sta n d a rd
. G re e n v . S t a t e , 9 3 4 S
. W
. 2 d 9 2 , 1 0 1 - 0 2 ( Te x . C r i m, A p p . 1 9 9 6 )
. A n a ppel lat e court wi ll not rev erse a trial court’s decision w hose ruling is w ithin th e z one of reason able dis ag re ement. Id. at 102. See als o Guz man v. Sta te, 955 S. W .d 85 , 89 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)
. Extraneous Offense-M ar ij uana Appel lan t’ s conte nti on is that the ev ide nce re g ardin g the use and sal e of marijua na by appel lan t pr ior

to the first sex ual encou nter w it h M .A.F . w as not rele v ant u nder Tex as Rul e of Ev ide n ce 4 0 2. F urther , i f the ev ide nce w as re lev ant i t w as ina dmis si ble under 1 Rul e 404( b)
. Rul e 404( b) st ates that :4

Ev ide nce of otherc rimes , w ro ng s o r act s i s n ot ad mis si ble to prov e the charact er of a person in order to show the person acte d in co nformity therew it h .
. . . Appel lan t pos it s t hat t he ev ide nce re g ardin g the use and s ale of marijua na s er v ed no other purp ose th an to show th at app ellantwas a b ad perso n. A ccordingly , it was not ad missible and t he admi ss ion w as har mf ul. How ev er , app ell ant’ s dis cu ss ion of thi s e v ide nti ar y i ss ue does not inc lud e the admis si bil ity

of thi s e v ide nce pursuantto arti cl e 38. 37 of the Te xas C ode of C ri minal Proced ure. T his statu te ap plies to pr o s e c u t ions for sexual of fense s comm itted against chi ldren under 17 y ears of ag e. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 38.37 § 1 ( Ver non Supp. 2006)
. The st atute al so prov ide s t hat, Not w it hst andi ng Rul es 404 and 405 , Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce, ev ide nce of oth er crimes, w rongs, or acts com mitt ed b y t he defend antagainst the child w ho i s t he v icti m of the all eg ed of fense shall be admitted for its bear ing on re le van t m a tt e rs, in clu d in g; (1 ) the s tate of mind of the defendant and t he c hil d; an d (2 ) the p re v iou s a nd s ubseq uent re latio n ship be tw een t he defendant and the chi ld. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art 38. 37 § 2 (Vernon Supp . 200 6). Gi v en th e s tatut or

y l ang uag e, t he ev ide nce of the us e and sal e of mar ij uana w as relevant and a dm issible to dem onst rate the a ttem pt by ap pellan t to cultivate a relation ship w it h the min or . As suc h, this ev ide nce g oes direct ly to the s tate of mind of appel lan t and the mi nor . See O ’C anas v . St ate, 140 S. W .3d 6 95, 6 9 8 ( T e x.A pp.–D all as 2003, pet. re f’d.) ; M cC oy

v . St ate, 10 S. W .3d 5 0, 54 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1999, no pet .)
.5

H o w e v e r , t h e a p p e l l a n tfu rt h e r a l l e g e s t h a t , e v e n i f t h e e v i d e n c e i s re l e v a n tand admis si ble , t he tr ial courtcommitte d f urther error byallo w ing the jur

y to hear the tes ti mony in the face of a Ru le 403 obj ect ion aboutthe preju dic ial effectof that ev ide nce. U nder appel lan t’ s t heor

y , t he admi ss ion of the e v ide nce w as har mf ul becau se the s ole resul t of the a dmis si on w as to make him out as a dr ug deal er w it hout addi ng anythi ng probati v e to the t ri al. For pur poses of appel lan t’ s conte nti on, the app li cabl e por ti on of R ule 403 prov ide s tha t rele v antev iden ce ma y still be e x clude d if

the pro bat iv e v alue of the evidence is subs tantiall y o u tw eig hed by the dang er

of unfair

preju dic e. In mak ing a R ule 403 deter minat ion of probati v e v alu e and unfair preju dic e, there are four areas of inq uir y : ( 1) how com pelling t he extraneo us of fense e v iden ce serv es to ma ke a fact of conse quence more or l ess probabl e – a factor w hic h is re lat ed to the streng th of t he ev ide nce present ed by the proponentto show the defendant i n fact commi tted the extraneous offense; (2 ) the potent ial the other

offense ev id e nce has to i mpres s t he j ur y “ in some i rrati onal but nev erthel ess ind eli ble w ay ”; (3 ) the ti me the proponent w il l need t o dev elo p the ev ide nce, dur ing w hic h the j ur

y w il l be di stract ed from c onsi derati on of the ind icted o ffense; and (4 ) the force of the propon ent ’s nee d for this evidence to prove a fact of conse quence , tha t is, does the p ro ponent hav e oth er ev ide nce a vail a b le to him to he lp est abl is h thi s fact , and is thi s factrela ted t o an is sue in dis pute. W y att v . St ate, 23 S. W .3d 1 8, 26 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. After thi s deter minat ion , a re v iew ing cour t shoul d onl y

rev erse in cas es of a cl ear abuse of dis creti on. Id.W e not e that ev en if the cour t erred in admitt ing this ev ide nce, the er ro r w as not 2 one that , in lig ht of the ent ire record, had a subst ant ial and injurious ef fect or inf luen ce in deter mini ng the jur

y ’s v erdict. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2( b) ; Ki ng v . Stat e, 95 3 S. W .2d 2 66, 2 71 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)
. 6 The ev ide nce compl ain ed of w ent t o s how the re lat ion shi p tha t e xist e d betw een M. A.F . and appell ant pri or to the sex ual assaul t. It tended to de monstrate t he attempts of appel lan t t o “ g ro om” M. A.F
. for the ass aul t. See g enerall y Her nandez v . Stat e, 97 3 S. W .2d 7 8 7 , 7 9 0 (T e x.A p p .–Au st in 19 9 8 , p e t. r e f ’d ). T h e pro o f of th e extr a n e o u s o f

fe n se , t h ro u gh the t est imony of M .A.F ., w as re lat iv ely cl ear and defini ti v e about the facts of the offense. It too k o nly a few mo me nts of M.A .F.’s t estim ony to p resen t the e v iden ce an d it w as in fact prese nte d as part of

t he chron ological o rder of e v ent s. A ccordingly , the re was little chan ce tha t this evidence d is t ra c t ed th e jury f rom th e con siderat ion of the ind icted o f

fense . It is tr ue th at poss ess ion and dis tr ibu ti on of mar ij uana c ar ry w it h i t s ome emoti onal bag g ag e; how ev er , i t is not suc h as w il l impress the jur y in some irrati onal m anner , more s o w hen t he ma nne r of

presen tatio n of

the evidence is consid ered
. T he St ate ’s need for the e v iden ce mig ht be co nsi dered s li g ht, espec ial ly i n l ig ht of appel lan t’ s confess ion , how ev er , t he St ate is e ntitled t o prese nt the su rround ing facts and circumsta nces o f the ind icted o f

fense . Th is w as the o nly ev ide nce at the Stat e’s di spos al to s how the prev iou s rela ti onshi p betw een the v icti m and ap pel lan t or to shed li g ht on the sta te of mind of appel lan t. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 38.37 § 1 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 006)
. Acc ordin g ly , w e hol d tha t t he admis si on of the e xtra n eous offense ev ide nce w as not a cl ear abus e of di sc re ti on and appel lan t’ s c ontent ion i s o v er ru led
. 27 Prev iou s I mpri sonment Appel lan t next contend s that the tri al cour t erred w hen it all ow ed his st atement to be publ is hed t o the j ur

y w it hout re dact ing the follo w ing phrase, “s inc e I g ot ou t of pr is on.” App ellant ’s trial obje ction was pursuan t to R ule 403. How ever, app ellant ’s brief only refers to R ule 403 in sta ti ng w hat t he tr ial obj ect ion w as. There are no ci tati ons to author ity and no a nalysis upo n w hich w e are to base o ur d ecision on this ma tter, save a v eryconcluso ry sta tement. Ap pel lan t has fail ed to brie f thi s is sue in confor mity w it h the rule s o f appell ate procedu re . T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8 .1 (h ). Ac cordin g ly , he has faile d to presentanythi ng for re v iew
. See Tufele v . St ate, 130 S. W .3d 2 67, 2 71 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 2004, th no pet . h. ). Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s c ontent ion s, w e af firm the judg ment of

the tr ial co urt.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.