I n he r app el l at e br i ef , Vasquez ’ s coun sel r epeat edl y r ef er s t o ap pel l ant as “ Vi l l ar r eal

. ” W e assu m e 1 t hat each r ef er ence t o “ Vi l l ar r eal ” i s i nst ead i nt ended t o r ef er t o Vasque z , t he a ppel l ant i n t he i nst ant case. 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0005 8-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG
LU IS VASQU EZ , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 56t h Dist rict C ou rt o f B ee Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza A Bee C ounty

j ur y co nv ic ted a ppel lan t, Luis Vasq uez , on t hree c ounts of 1 ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t, a first- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.021( a) (1 )( B) (i ), ( a) (2 )( B) , (e ) (V er non Supp. 2008)

. The ju ry as ses sed puni shmentat fiftyy ears’ i mpri sonmentin the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce–I nst it uti onal D iv is ion (“ TDC J- ID ”) for e ach count , w it h the ter ms for count s o ne and tw o to r un c onsec uti v ely , and the term for the th ird countto run con currently. The trial cou rt also grant ed th e Sta te’s moti on to re v oke Vasq uez ’s communi ty super v is ion , w hic h he w as ser v ing as the re sul t of a pr ior co nv ic ti on, a nd s entenc ed hi m to tw o y ears’ impr is onment, w it h that sent ence to r un2

conc ur re ntl y

w it h the othe r ter ms of puni shment

. Vasque zargues on ap pea l that: (1) the ev iden ce w as legally and factu ally insuf f icient to supp ort his conviction of agg rav ate d sexual assau lt ; (2) the trial court imp rope rly

fail e d t o i n c lude a proba tion inst ruction in the jury charge; (3) the trial court
er re d by not all ow ing ev ide nce of the v ic ti m’s pas t beh av ior ; and (4) the tr ial co urt v iol ated Va s q ue z ’ s r i g hta g ai ns t c r ue l a nd u nu s ua l p un i s hm en t. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Vasque zw as indicte d in trial court cause num ber B-07 -202 2-0-CR-B on Februa ry 2 2 , 2 0 0 7

. T h e in d ic t m e n t a ll e ge d t h re e co u n t s o f a ggr a va t e d se xu a l a s s a u lt ; sp e c if ic a ll y, tha t Vasquez had, on July 15, A ugust 17, a nd Au gust 30, 20 05, inten tiona lly or know ingly
ca u s e d t h e p e n e t r a t i o n w i t h h i s s e x u a l o rg a n o f A

. V

. , a c h i l d u n d e r t h e a g e o f fo u rt een. After a tr ial on J anuar

y 7, 8 and 9, 2008, the jur y retur ned a v erdict findi ng Vas q uezg uil ty
on a ll three cou nts. At the time o f

the ind ictme nt an d trial, Vasquez w as servi ng a term of seven y ears’ communi ty

su pervisi on i mposed in 2001 for the off ense of tamper ing w it h g ov er nmental
re cords in tr ial co urt c ause number B- 01- 2091- 0 -CR- B. See i d. § 37 .10 ( Ver non Su pp. 200 8 ). As a r e sul t of the all eg ati ons cont ain ed i n the F ebr uar y 22, 2007 i ndi ctment , t he Stat e fil ed a moti on to rev oke Vasq uez ’s co m m u n it y super v is ion i n tha t c ase. After the Janua ry 2008 jur y tr ial , t he tr ial co urt hel d a b ench tr ial on the moti on to rev oke. The t ri al
cour t found t he al leg ati ons in the State ’s m oti on to be tru e, rev oked Vasq uez ’s co mmunity super v i s i o n , a n d s e n t e n c e d h i m t o tw o y e a rs ’ i mp r i s o n me n t i n t h e TD C J

- I D , w i t h the sent ence to r un c oncur re ntl y w it h the puni shment s impos ed in tr ial cour t caus e number

B07- 2022- 0- CR -B

. T he trial cou rt ce rtif ied Vasque z ’s right t o app eal in cause num ber B-07 -202 2-0-CRB on Janua ry

9, 2008, and Va sq uezfil ed hi s n oti ce of appeal i n that cas e on Janua ry 22, 2008. This appeal foll ow ed.3

A
. St at e’s E v id ence At trial, the a lleged v ictim, A.V. , testif ied th at Va squez forciblyassau lted h er tw ice at hi s h ome and ag ain i n hi s c ar w hil e on a tr ip to W al- Ma rt , w it h al l three as saul ts
occ ur ri ng w hen s he w as under the ag e of

fourt een. Ac cordin g to A.V. , Va sq uezforc ed her to pu ll dow n he r shorts and und erw ear an d forced himse lf o n her. A.V. sp ecif ically desc ri bed t he as saul ts as Vasq uezputt ing hi s “ middl e par t” i n her “ middl e par

t.” A.V. ’s brothe r, R.V., testif ied tha t he liv ed w ith Vasque z , A.V. , and A.V. an d R.V.’s
mo the r, at Vasque z ’s hou se in Bee v ille, Te x as. R.V. stat ed th at Va squez w ould f requent ly send him and hi s b ro ther out “t o the st ore” w hil e Vas q uez sta y ed at home w it h A.V. , and that w hen t hey

retur ned, A.V. w oul d be upset

. R. V. sta ted t hat h e onc e obs er v ed Vas q uez bendi ng ov er

A.V., ex posi ng his peni s, and stat ing to A.V. : “D o y ou w ant t o pl ay w it h i t? Jus t t ouch it .” O n c ro ss -e x aminat ion , R .V. conc eded t hat h e w as on j uv eni le probati on for t h e f tin V ic t o ri a Co u n t y. Mi chel le Och oa, a fri end of A.V .’ s mot her , t est ified thatsh e recei v ed a tel ephone cal l from A.V . on September 26, 2005, and t hat i n resp o n se t o t h e call , O choa w ent t o Vasq uez ’s hous e to pic k up A.V. and her mother

. Oc hoa s tated thatA.V . w as v er y ups et
w hen sh e pic k ed h er

u p, a nd t ha t s he t oo kA .V

. an d he r mo th er t o he r fr i en d Ve ronica W ade’ s h ouse. O choa further stat ed th at, as a resul t of w hat A .V. tol d her , W ade cont act ed th e Beev il le Pol ic e D epar tment. O choa further

tes ti fied th at s he to ok A.V. to the Sher iff ’s o f

f ice t he next day

. Och oa c onced ed on cross -e x aminat ion thatsh e di d not immedi atel y

tak e A. V. t o the po lice on S eptember 26, 2005; ra ther , s he w ait ed unt il the fo ll o win g d a y. Carol Mc Laug hli n, a sex ual ass aul t nurse ex aminer at Dr is col l Chi ldren’ s H ospi tal in Cor pus Chr is ti , t est ified thatsh e per formed a medic al ex aminat ion on A .V. on Oc tober 20, 2 005. M cLaug hli n rela ted t hat, dur ing the ex aminat ion , A. V. s tated : “I g ot touc hed in my middl e par t,” and she ind ic ated her female s ex ual org an by poi nti ng , “ by

my mom’s boyfrie nd, L uis Vasq uez
. He st uck hi s t hin g i nsi de me. H e’s done thi s a l ot of ti mes. C um came out of i t, w hit e s tuff

. He w ipe d itoff w it h a s hir

t and put iti n the di rty

cl othes .”4

Mc Laug hli n al so tes ti fied that, in per forming a g eni tal ex aminat ion on A .V., sh e obs er v ed

“ a o n e - h a l f c e n t i me t e r w ell

- h e a l e d t e a r

t o h e r h y me n ” w h i c h w a s “ i n d i c a t i v e o f a penetrati ng trauma.” O n cros s- ex aminat ion , w hen defense couns el ask ed i f the i nju ry w as “a recenttear ,” Mc Laug hli n sta ted that “[ i] t w as w ell heal ed w hic h meant itw as more than three day s o ld. ” M cLaug hli n ag re ed w it h defense couns el that the inj ur y “c oul d hav e been
a w eek old ” but t hat “ thi s i nju ry co uld be four

w eeks ol d, t his inj ur

y co uld be tw o y ears o ld. Al l w e k now

i s t hat t he hy men w as inj ured and heal ed to rn , nottog ether .” Cap tai n D ani el Lee C adel l of the Bee C ounty Sher iff’s O ff ic e tes ti fied th at he interview ed A. V. on Sep tem ber 27, 200 5, and that A.V. ma de allegations of sex ual ab use at t hat t ime. C aptai n C adel l further st ated that he made cont actw it h Vas q uezon September

29, 2005, and t h a t Vasq uezdeni ed th e al leg ati ons. O n c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Cap tai n C adel l noted that no D NA ev ide nce had bee n recov ered i n the ca se. Lie utenantM anuel Es pin osa, a cr imi nal i nv est ig ator w it h the Tex as Dep artment of Publ icSafety , c onduc ted a non- cus todi al int er v iew w it h Vas q uezi n Oc tober 2005. Lie utenantEs pin osa tes ti fied th at, w hen he ask ed Vas q uezw hether he h ad s ex ual int er course w it h A.V. , Vasq uez sta ted that “h e did n’t force [A.V .] to hav e sex with hi m.” Lieu ten antEspino sa the n state d tha t Vasque zla ter “recante d” b y st ating “‘I didn’t forcef ully have sex w ith [A.V .] be cause it never hap pen ed. I nev er did ha v e sex w ith he r.’” B. Vasq uez ’s E v id ence Rebe cca Vasque z , app ellant ’s daughte r, testif ied tha t she saw A.V. a t a ba r w here Reb ecc a w as w or ki ng as a de eja y and that A.V. w as “be ing a li ttl e row dy and not ob ey ing her mother .” A. V.’ s mot her tes ti fied th at she did not b eli ev e A. V. w hen A. V. first tol d her ab ou t Va s q ue z ’ s a c tions. Ho w ev er , s he s ta te d: “ I be l i ev e he r n ow , th ou g h. ” N or ma Garcia, th e gir lf riend of Vasquez’s broth er, testif ied that she and Vasquez’s broth er w ere staying w ith Vasque z in Octob er 200 5. Garcia also state d tha t A.V. and her moth er w ere not s tay ing at Vasq uez ’s resi dence dur ing Sept ember 2005.5

Vasque zden ied th at he ever exposed h is p enis to A.V. o r R.V., thathe ever put his peni s “ in the mi ddl e par t of [A. V.], ” or

thathe ev er

touched A.V. i nappropr iat ely

. Vasq uez t e s t if ie d t h a th e se p a ra t e d f ro m A

. V ’s m o t h e r a tt h e e n d o f 2 0 0 4 , a n d t h a tsu b s e qu e n t ly, A.V. called him f requent ly o n his cell p hon e and a t hom e to “threa ten []” him an d call him a “child mo lester” and “a lot of dif feren t nam es.” On cross-examina tion, w hen the St ate ’s atto rney asked Vasque zif “y ou’re saying tha t [A.V

. ] i s m a k in g all this up be cause she’s ang ry at y ou for not g iv ing her more money ,” Vas q uezrespon ded, “Y es, ma’ am.” II. D I S CUS S I ON A
. Suf

fi cien cy o f th e Ev id ence By his f irst issue , Vasque zco nte nds tha t the e v iden ce add uced a t trial w as legally and factu all y

i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t hi s c onv ic ti on for ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t. 1. St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw In condu cting a legal suf f iciency rev iew , w e consid er the evidence in the lig ht m ost fav orabl e to the v erdict t o det er mine w hether anyrati onal tri er

of factcould hav e found the
ess enti al ele ments of t he cr ime bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Sander s v . St ate , 119 S.W .3d 818 , 820 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p
. 2 0 03). “Th is stand ard is mea nt to g iv e ‘f ull play to th e [jury’ s] respo nsibility fairly ’ to ‘draw reason able inferen ces f rom basic facts to ultima te facts.’” Id. (qu o ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 318 ( 1979) ). W e are notreq uired to dete rmi ne
w hether w e bel iev e tha t t he ev ide nce at tr ial est abl is hed g uil t bey ond a re asona ble doubt ; rathe r, wh e n f a c ed wi th con f licting evidence, w e mu st presum e tha t the trier of fact
re sol v ed any

su ch confli ct in fav or of t he prosec uti on, and w e must defer t o tha t resol uti on. Sta te v. Turro , 867 S.W .2d 43, 47 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93). In c onduc ti ng a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , w e c onsi der t h e e vidence i n a n eutral li g ht. W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 14- 15 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. The v erdict is to be s et as ide onl y

i f: ( 1) i t i s s o c ontrar

y to the ov er

w hel ming w eig ht of

the ev ide nce as to be c learly wrong and manifest ly unj ust ; or

( 2) i t i s a g ain st the g re at w eig ht an d pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. Id. at41 5 (cit in g Johns on v. St ate , 2 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 , 1 0 (T e x.6

Crim. App

. 200 0)). To rev erse a verdict fo r fa ctua lly insuf f icient evidence , w e mu st “ex plain in ex act ly

w hat w ay

the Stat e’s ev ide nce, w hil e l eg all y suff ic ien t, is nev erthel ess too w eak to w ithsta nd scrutin y , or in ex actly w hatw ay w e pe rceiv e the conf licting evidence greatly to prep ond erate against conviction.” Id. at 414. Both leg al and factu al suffici ency are meas ured by

the ele ments of the off ense as defined bya hy pothet ic all y co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. Ma li

k v . St ate , 9 5 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1997) ; Adi v. State , 94 S.W .3d 124, 131 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet.
re f’d)

. Und e r a h y pothet ic all y co rrectj ur

y ch arg e, V asq uezco mmitt ed th e offense of ag g ra v ated sex ual assaul t if he (1) intent ion all y or kn ow ing ly

( 2) ca used the p enetrati on of the s ex ual org an of A.V ., (3 ) w ho w as then y oung er than fourt een y ears o f age

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22. 021 (a)(1)(B)( i), (a)(2)(B). A pe rson acts int ent iona lly w ith respe ct to a re sul t of hi s co n d u ct when i t i s h is co nsc iou s o bje cti v e or des ire to eng ag e i n the condu ct or

ca use the resul t. Id. § 6. 03( a) ( Ve rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). A person act s k now ing ly w it h respe ct to a result o f

his condu ct w hen he is aw are tha t his cond uct is reason ably certain to c ause the resul t. Id. § 6.03 (b) (Vernon 2 003 ). 2. A nal ysis Vasq uezcl aims thatthe ev ide nce w as leg all y i nsuffici ent t o s ust ain hi s c onv ic ti on for ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t becau se there w as “n o ev ide nce” adduc ed “ to c lea rl y sh ow appel lan t’ s co n sc io u s objecti v e or des ire; or

cl ear ly sh ow an a w areness of the n ature of his co nduct .” W e di sag re e. The tes ti mony

of a c hil d v ictim al one i s s uff ic ien t t o s uppor t a conv ic ti on for ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. a rt

. 3 8

. 0 7 ( V e r non 200 5) ; see Gar ci a v . St ate , 563 S.W .2d 925, 928 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1978)

. The v ic ti m’s des cr ipt ion of
w hat o cc ur re d does not need to be preci se, and w ide l ati tude is g iv en to the tes ti mony of
a c hil d v ic ti m of sex ual abus e. Vi ll alo n v . St ate , 791 S.W .2d 1 30, 1 3 4 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1990) ( en banc ). Penetrati on may be prov ed by ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce, and there i s n o
re q uirement t hat t he c hil d v ic ti m be abl e to tes ti fy as to pe netrati on. Id. at 133 . Moreover,7

int ent c an be infer re d from t he ac ts, w ords, and condu ct of t he ac cus ed. DeL eon v . St ate , 7 7 S. W .3 d 30 0 , 3 1 2 (T e x. Ap p .–Au st in 20 0 1 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Her nandez v. State , 819 S.W .2d 806, 810 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) ; Due s v . St ate , 63 4 S. W .2 d 30 4, 3 06 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 198 2)). Here, A.V. provided p recise, direct testim ony a s t o three o ccasion s on w hich Vasq uezforc ed her

to pul l dow n her shor

ts and under

w ear , and put his “ middl e par t” i n her “midd le part.” Accordin gly , the jury could have reason ably i nferred th at Va squez knowingl y or i ntent ion ally c a u se d the penet ra ti on of A.V .’ s s ex ual org an on thos e oc cas ion s. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 6. 03(a ), (b), 22.02 1(a)(1)(B)(i) , (a)(2)(B). Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in the li g ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdict, w e c oncl ude t hat a
ra ti onal j u ry c o u ld hav e found bey ond a re asona ble doubtthe ess enti al ele ments of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t, inc lud ing Vas q uez ’s st ate of mind. See Sand ers , 119 S.W .3d at 82 0. Acc ordin g ly , t he ev ide nce w as leg all y su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t Va sq uez ’s co nv ic ti on. Vasq uezfurth er

as ser ts that the ev ide nce produce d at tr ial w as factual ly i nsuffici ent to sup port his con v iction, p ointin g to (1) the “m edica l ev iden ce [s h o w ing] that [A .V.’s] inj ur ies w er e rece nt” as of October 2005, and (2 ) the test imony of Garci a tha t A. V. a nd her mother w er e notl iv ing w it h Vas q uezas of that ti me. Vasq uezcl aims thatthi s “ confli cti ng
ev ide nce g re atl y

ou tw eig hs any

ev ide nce to s uppor

t a conv ic ti on.” W e di sag re e. Mc Laug hli n’s tes ti mony es tabl is hed t hat t he i nju ri es “c oul d hav e been a w eek old ” but that the i nju ry al so “c oul d be four w eeks [or] tw o y ears old. ” M oreov er , ev en i f the j ur y w ere to hav e bel iev ed Ga rc ia’ s t est imony thatA.V . and her

mother w ere n o t l iv ing w it h Vas q uez at t he ti me of

the ass aul t all eg ati ons, this w oul d notse rv e to outw eig h the more rele v ant direct test imo ny provided by A.V. of the assa ults the mse lv es. Vie wing the e v ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w e c oncl ude t hat t he j ur y ’s v erdict i s n ot cle a rly w ro ng , mani festl y unj ust , or

ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the
ev ide nce. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d at 414 -15. Accordin gly , the ev iden ce w as factu ally suffici ent t o s uppor

t Va sq uez ’s co nv ic ti on. Iss ue one is ov er ru led

.8

B. Probation Instruction By hi s s econd i ss ue, V asq uezco ntends thatthe tr ial co urt’ s fai lure to i n clude a probati on inst ru cti on in the jur y charg e w as rev ersi ble error
. W e di sag re e. Vasq uez ’s tr ial
couns el did not re q uestsu ch an i nst ru cti on to be i ncl uded i n the ch arg e. Mo re ov er , after the jury c h a rg e w as sub mitt ed a nd co nside red, when the trial court asked both defense
coun sel and atto rney for the State if th ey had any objection s t o t h e cha rg e, de fense
couns el re pli ed, “ No obj ect ion s.” Ac cordin g ly , Va sq uezhas not preser v ed th is i ss ue for
o u r r e v i e w
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3

. 1 (r e qu ir in g a t im e ly o bje c t io n in o rd e r t o p re s e rve
er ro r) ; see als o Vasq uez v. State , N o. 13 -0 5- 531- CR , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 2 952, at * 8 (Tex . Ap p.–Co rpus C hr is ti Apr . 24, 2008, pet. ref’d) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for pub lication). Fur ther , t he record does not cont ain s a pre- tr ia l sw or n moti on fil ed by Vas q uez ind ic ati ng thathe h ad notbeen prev iou sl y conv ic ted of a f elo ny , w hic h w oul d hav e been
re q uired for Vasq uezto be el ig ibl e for jur y -recommended communi ty s u p er v is ion

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42 .12 , § 4(e) (Vernon Supp . 200 8). W e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial cou rt d id n o t er r by fail ing to inc lud e a p ro bati on ins tr uct ion i n the j ur

y ch arg e. Vasq uez ’s se cond is sue is ov er ru led

. C. PastB ehav io r E v id ence By hi s t hird i ss ue, V asq uez cont ends that the tr ial co urt er re d by deny ing admi ss ion of ev iden ce regarding A.V.’s “prio r f a ls e st ate me nts an d prior sexual advances toward men,” cl aimi ng thatthi s d eci si on h indere d hi s a bil ity to presenta “ promis cui ty defense. ” The foll ow ing ex chang e oc cur re d dur ing cross -e x aminat ion of A.V. : Q. [V as q ue z ’ s at to r ne y] N ow , w i th r eg ards to these allegations, let me ask y ou f irs t was t his the firs t t ime y ou’ v e ev er a c c u s e d so m e b o d y – [ S t a t e ’ s a t t o r n e y] : O bj e c t i o n , Y o u r H o n o r
. C a n ’ tg e ti n t o t h a t

. W e hav e a mot ion i n l imi ne. [Vas q uez ’s att or ney]: W ell , y ou w ant t o approach?9

[Sta te’s att orne y]: Yes. (T he fo ll owing dis cus si

on was had at

the bench .) [Vas q uez ’s att or ney]: W hy i s i t – w hy

w oul d y ou obj ect ? The Cou rt : ‘C ause she has a moti on in li mine. It’ s a moti on in li mine ag ain st that. [Vas q uez ’s att or ney]: About w hat? T he Cou rt: Abo ut an y prior – [Sta te’s att orne y]: – an y prior accusatio ns. [ V a s qu e z’s a t t o rn e y] : W e ll , t h is is

. . . O k a y. A tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to admi t or ex cl ude ev ide nce is re v iew ed under an a buse of dis creti on s tandard. Opr ean v . St ate , 2 0 1 S

. W. 3 d 7 2 4 , 7 2 6 ( T e x
. C r i m
. A p p
. 2 0 0 7 )

. W e
w il l uphol d the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment unl ess the deci si on l ies outs ide t he “ z one of
reaso nab le disagreem ent .” Id. T he St ate conte nds tha t Vasquez fa iled to pre serv e this issue for rev iew beca use the rec or d d o e s n o tc o n t a i n a b i l l o f e x c e p t i o n w h i c h d e mo n s t ra t e s t o t h i s C o u rtt he
ev ide nce that Vasq uezso ug ht t o pres ent to the jur y
. W e agree. To preser v e a c omplai nt tha t the trial court erroneo usly e x c l ud ed e v iden ce, th e com plainin g party must bring forw ard
a record i ndi cat ing the nature of the ev ide nce. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3 .1, 33.2; T EX
. R. E V ID
. 103( a) (2 ). I f the ex cl uded ev ide nce is not apparent from the cont ext of the re cord, it must be broug ht forw ard eit her throug h a ti mely off er of proof or a formal bi ll of ex cept ion

. Rey na v . St ate , 168 S.W .3d 1 73, 1 76 ( Tex

. Cr im. App. 2005) ; Guidr y v . St ate , 9 S.W .3d 133 , 153 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99). Here, t he record re flect s that the t ri al cour t rendered an order

on t he St ate’ s mot ion in li mine, g ra nti ng the Stat e’s re que st t h a t no menti on be made at tr ial of, among othe r thi ng s, “[ a]l leg ati ons of sex ual abus e by the compl ain ant a g ain st others that hav e not been subst ant iated ,” o r “[e] v iden ce of sex ual prom iscuity.” Bey ond this, howev er, the record in thi s c ase does not i ndi cat e w hat the ex cl uded t est imony w oul d hav e been. Ab sentaW e n ote addi t i onal l y t hat t he r ecor d be f or e us does not i ndi cat e t he co ndi t i ons su r r oundi ng 2 Vasquez ’ s 200 1 con v i ct i on f or t am per i ng wi t h go v er nm ent al r ecor ds. Even i fVasquez had f i l ed a not i ce of a p p e a l i n tri a l c o u rt c a u s e n u m b e r B -0 1 -2 0 9 1 -0 -C R -B , w e w o u l d n o t b e a b l e to p a s s ju d g m e n t o n th e p ro p rie ty o f V a s q u e z’ s p u n i s h m e n t o f tw o y e a rs ’ i m p ris o n m e n t w ith o u t s u c h a re c o rd

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 37. 10 ( Ver non Supp. 2008) ( pr ov i di ng t hat t he cr i m e of t am per i ng wi t h gov er nm ent al r ecor ds i s, dep endi ng o n va rio u s c o n d i ti o n s , e i th e r a C l a s s C m i s d e m e a n o r, C l a s s B m i s d e m e a n o r, C l a s s A m i s d e m e a n o r, s ta te j ai l fel on y , t hi rd-de gre e fe l on y , or se c on d-d eg ree fel on y ). 10 show ing of w hat s uch tes ti mony w oul d hav e been, or

an o ff er of a s tatementco ncer nin g
w hat t he ex cl uded ev ide nce w oul d s how , not hin g i s p re sent ed for our rev iew

. See Guidry , 9 S. W .3d a t 153 ; Mc

Afee v. State , 204 S.W .3d 868, 873 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, pet. re f’d)

. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Vasq uez ’s thi rd i ss ue. D. Cruel and Unusual Punis hment By his fourth issue, Va squez cont e nds th at his pu nishm entof tw o y ears’ impr is onment i n c ase number B- 01- 2091- 0- CR -B v iol ated his r ig ht t o be free of cr uel and
unusu al puni shment

. See U .S. C ON ST
. amend. VIII

. The Stat e arg ues that Vasq uezfail ed t o p r e s e r v e t h i s i s s u e fo r

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

. W e not e, how ever, tha t the record before us cont ains no not ice of app eal filed in tria l c ourt
caus e number

B- 01- 2091- 0- CR -B

. Ac cordin g ly , w e hav e no jur is dicti on to co nsi der the 2
cons ti tuti onal ity

of the sent ence impos ed in that cas e. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2( b) ( “I n a criminal case, app eal i s perfecte d by timelyf iling a suf f icient no tice of

app eal.”). Vasque z ’s fourth is sue is ov er ru led

. III
. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led Vas q uez ’s four is sues , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 26t h day

of Febr uar

y , 200 9.