### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 01 55 -C R

______________________________ DAMUS BA CON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 35279-B

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Damus Bacon waived his rig ht to a jury trial, pled guilty

to sex ual assault, see T EX . P EN AL C ODE ANN . § 2 2
. 0 1 1 (V ern o nS u p p . 2 0 0 7 ), an d s u

b m i t t ed t h e i s s u e o f p u n i s h m en t t o t h e t ri al co u rt 's dis c re tio n w ith ou t th e be ne fi t of a ne g oti a te d p le a

a g reem ent . The State ha d p re vio us ly fi le d it s written notice of

i n t en t to introduce e vidence of other c rimes, wrong s, or bad a cts during the punishment phase of Bac on' s trial. The S tate int roduce d such evidence at the puni shment trial and this same evidenc e wa s included in the pre sentenc e investig ation (PSI ) re port submitted to the trial
c ou rt , w h i c h u l t i m a t e l y

s e n t e n c e d

B a c o nt o e i g h t e e ny e ar s ' c o n f i n e m e n t
. B a c o nn o w a

p p e a ls, contendingin a sing le point of err or that the trial cour t erre d by admitting and c onsidering , during the punishment phase of the trial, evidenc e that Ba con had committed extraneous cr iminal offense s that wer e not cha

rg ed in the indictment to which he had pled g uilty and was then be ing se ntence d. B a c on a sse rt s th e tr ia l c ourt ' s c on sid e ratio n o f t his e xtra ne ou s- of fe ns e e vid e nc e vio la te s h is Six th A mendment rig ht " to ha ve a jury find the exis tence of ' any particula r fa ct' that the law make s
e sse nti a l to his punis hme nt" and c ite s Blakely

v. W ashington , 5 42 U. S. 2 96 , 3 01 (2 00 4) . We fi rs t
no te that B a c on has n ot c ha lle ng e d th e su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e a

bo ut h is e xtra

ne ou s c on du c t; rathe r, he only

challeng es the trial c ourt' s decision to admit and consider such conduc t wi t h i n the context of assessing punishment. Never theless, B acon' s point of error ig nores the f act that he voluntarily

and knowing ly

waived his Six th Amendment rig ht t o a j u ry t ri al on both the gu i l t/ i n n o ce n ce an d p u n i s h m en t p h as es i n t h i s ca s e. He al s o m ad e no o b j ec t i o n t o t h e t ri al co u rt 's3

consideration of t he P SI repor t that contained much of t he extraneous- offe nse evide nce w hich now forms the basis of his appellate c omplaint. Theref ore, his fa ilure to object to the at-issue evidenc e at the ea rliest point of its admissi on means this issue has not been p rese rved f or appe llate re view. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a). Additionally , Ba con' s insist ence on the application of Blak e ly to the pr oc e dura l po sture of

thi s c a se is e nti re ly

ina pp ro pr ia te be c a

us e he vo lun tari ly

wa ive d h is r ig ht t o have a jury deter mine his punishment in t his case. Moreove r, as the State c orre ctly notes in its appellate brie f, our law expressly permits a trial
c ourt to a dmi t e vid e nc e of

fe re d b y e ith e r t he State or

the de fe nd ant
a s to any ma tte r the c ourt de e ms re le va nt to s e nte nc ing , in c lud ingbu t no t li mit e d to the prior c riminal rec ord of the de fe n d an t , h i s g ener al re putation, his chara cter , an op ini on re g ard inghis c ha

ract er, th e c ir c ums tanc e s o f t he of fe ns e fo r w hic h h e is being tried, and, notwithstanding Rules 404 and 405, Texas Rules of Evidence , any oth e r e vid e nc e of

an e xtra ne ou s c ri me or

ba d a c t th a t is sh ow n b e y on d a re a so na ble do ub t by e viden c e to h a ve be e n c omm itt e d b y the de fe nd ant o r f

or wh ic h h e c ou ld be held criminally responsible, reg ardle ss of whe ther he has pre viously been c harg ed with or finally

convicted of

the cr ime or ac t . . . . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 37.07, § 3 (V ernon Supp. 2007). I n p ro no un c ingits se nte nc e , th e tr ia l c ou rt ma de se ve ra l c omm e nts abo ut the e xtra ne ou soffe nse evide nce br oug ht forth. The trial court' s comments sug g est the cour t found the evide nce of the at-issue e x trane ous offe nse(s) t o h av e been pr oven beyond a re asonable doubt. Such a
s u f f i c i e n c y f i n d i n g w a s i n h e r e n t l y n e c e s s ar y b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u rt c o u l d c o n s i d e r s u c h a c ts i n assessing Ba con' s punishment. See id. (r e qu ir ingfi nd ingthat a c t c omm itt ed bey on d a re a so na ble do ub t) . Si nc e B a c on

do e s n ot n owc ha lle ng e that un de rl y ingfi nd ing , s inc e our l aw e xpre ssl y pe rm its4

the trial court 's consi deration of such evidenc e, and sinc e Blak e ly is entirely

inapplicable to the proce dural a

nd fac tual posture of this ca se, we find no merit in Ba con' s sole point of err or. We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: April 2, 2008 Date D ecide d: April 3, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh