## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS

N O . P D - 1263 - 08

R O D G ER EU G EN E M A N SFI EL D , JR. , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE FOURTEENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA RRI S CO UNTY K ELL ER , P. J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h M E YE RS , W OMACK , K EASLE R , H ERVEY , and H OL C OM B , J J ., jo in e d . J OHNS ON , J ., f i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h P RI CE and C OCHR AN , J J ., j oi ne d. The trial c ourt ref

used to allow defe nse counse l to ask appellant’s f ather if appe llant had eve r been pla ced on f

elony probation. Appe llant subsequently took the stand to testify

that he had not been pla ced on felony probation before. He was impeache d by the S tate with evidence of extraneous bad ac ts, and he wa s asked whe ther he acc epted the jur y verdic t of guilt, to which he responded, “No.” The jury

sentenc ed him to 20 y ear s. The Court of Appea ls r ejec ted appellant’ s complaint on appea l, holding that th e fa t h er’ s proffe red te stimony was inadmissible due to lac k of per sonalMANSF IELD – 2

Ma ns fie ld v . S tate , 2 00 8 WL

28 84 63 8, 3- 5 ( Te x. Ap p. –H ou sto n [14 Di st] July 1 t h 29)(not desig nated f

or publication). knowledg e. 1 We gra nte d a pp e lla nt’ s p e tit ion

to a dd re ss whe the r t

he c o u r t o f a p p e a l s ’ s h old ingwa s c or

re c t, but in its brief on disc retionar y revie w, the State points out a wrinkle in the case : Appellant’s father tes ti f ie d , w it h o u t o b je c ti o n , th a t a

p p e ll an t h a d n e v e r b e e n c o n v ic te d o f a f e lo n y . T h e following

occur red: Q. Sir, how long have you known y our son? A. His whole life. Q. Okay. H as your son b een convicted of any felon ies in this or any other st ate? A. No. Q. Has your son bee n on felony probation? [P ROSECUTOR] : Objection, Your H onor, outside per sonal knowledg e. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Are y ou familiar with your son’s cr iminal recor d? A. Ye s. Q. Has he rec eived pr obation, felony probation in this or any

other state? [P ROSECUTOR] : Objection, Your H onor, outside per sonal knowledg e. THE COURT: Sustained. [DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: May we a pproac h the benc h? TH E CO UR T: Ye s. (At the B ench, on the rec ord)MANSF IELD – 3

Emphasis added. 2 SeeT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . a rt . 4 2. 12 , § 4( e ); see also art. 37.07, §2(b) & a rt. 42.12, 3 §4(d)( 3). Ex parte W

elch , 981 S.W .2d 183, 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 4 [DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Idon’t understa nd why he ca n’t testify , Your Honor

. THE COURT: He doe sn’t live with him the whole time, he hasn’t been with him the whole time. [ D E F E N S E C O U

N S E L ] : It g o e s t o th e w e i g h t , Y o ur H o n o r , n o tth e c r e d i b i l i ty. THE COURT: Isustained the objec tion. [DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Yes, sir. (O pe n c ourt , d e fe nd ant a

nd jur y pr e se nt) Q. Mr. Mansf

ield, are y ou asking this jury to put y our son on probation? A. Ye s. 2 The S tate c o n te n d s th a t a p p e ll an t d id

n o t n e e d to te s ti f y b e c a u s e h is f a th e r ’ s te s ti mo ny

“ c on sti tut ed su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e de mon str a tin g a pp e lla nt’ s e lig ibi lity

fo r p ro batio n p ur su ant t o Article 42.12, Sec tion 4, of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e.” T he State ar g ues that Section 4 “d o es n o t expressly

or implicitly

require that a def

endant f ile a sworn motion that he ha s not previously

been pla ced on c ommunity supervision in this or any

other state” nor does i t require “that

a de fe nd ant p re se nt e vid e nc e ” to t hat e ff e c t. T he State c on c lud e s th a t a pp e lla nt “ ha d n o b ur de n to plead a nd prove he had not pre viously been pla ced on c ommunity supervision.” W h a ta p p e l l an th a d

t o p l e a d an d p r o v e w a s th a th e h a d

n e v e r b e e nc o n v i c t e d

o f a f e l o n y. 3 Caselaw c onfirms that a c onviction in which (re g ular) pr obation is gr anted is still a conviction for this purpose , but that doe s not me an appellant was re quired to elicit testimony specific ally

saying 4MANSF IELD – 4

Tre v ino v . S

tate , 577 S.W .2d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). 5 that he ha d never

been on a

felony probation. Testimony

that he had ne ver be en convic ted of a felony would suffice to show that. Appellant points to the Harr is County form that he f illed out and signe d that included che ck box es for both having “neve r bee n convicted of a fe lony in this or any

other state” and having“neve r been pla ced on c ommunity supervision for a felony offe nse in this or any

other state.” I t is not clear that appella

n t h a d to u s e th is f

o r m. I t i s , a f

te r a ll , h is mo ti o nf

o r c o mm un it y s u p e r v ision. Reg ardle ss, use of the f

orm does not mean that, in order to esta blish eligibility

for pr obation, he had to elicit testimony

expressly stating that he had ne ver be en on community supervision for a felony of fe ns e . T he jury char g e c on ta ine d n o s uc h r e qu ir e me nt. I t si mpl y state d th a t th e jur

y c ou ld

rec ommend community

supervision if it found “that the de fenda nt has never

befor e bee n convicted of a f elony in this or any

other state.” So, appellant did not have to take the stand t o establish his probation elig ibilit y . His father ha d a lr e a dy

do ne so by

sayingtha

t a pp e lla nt h a d n e ve r be e n c on vic te d o f a fe lony . Ap pe lla

nt c ou ld 5 have de c lin e d to te sti fy

and rel ied so le ly

up on the te sti mony

he ha d s uc c e ssf

ull y e lic ite d f ro m hi s fathe r to support the submission of the issue of probation. The judg ment of the c ourt of appe als is affir med.

Deliver ed: Marc h 17, 2010 Pub lis h