NO. 07-08 -010 8-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C NO VEM BER12, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ CA RL PIN NE R, Appel lan t v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 15 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L AM B CO UNT Y; TH NO. 374 8; HON. FELIX KLEI N, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. Car l Pi nn er ap pe al s hi s c on v i cti on on th ree c ou nt s of ag g rav at ed s ex ua l assault c o m m it t e d u p o n h is a d o p t e d d a u gh t e r. He a rg u e s t h a t1 ) h is co n fe s s io n wa s in vo lu n t a ry, and 2)the ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor t t he c onv icti ons. W e aff ir m the jud g ment. Iss ue 1 - Voluntar

ine ss of Con fes si

on In his fi rs t i s s ue , ap pe l l an t c om pl ai ns of th e tr i al c ou rt’ s fai l ure to s up pres s his w ri tten confess ion . It w as pur por tedl y co erced by

a fell ow i nmate w ho al leg edl y

threatenedT h e c o n fe s s i o n c o n s i s te d o f th e fo l l o w i n g s ta te m e n t: “I C a rl W a y n e P i n n e r c o n fe s s th a t I a m g u i l ty 1 as ch arg ed of t he ch arg e o f ag gri vated [ s i c ] se x ua l as s au l t of [ t he co m pl ai na nt] . ”

C o u n s e l fo r a p p e l l a n t re p re s e n te d i n h e r b rie f th a t a n o b je c ti o n w a s u tte re d . G i v e n th a t t h e a p p e l l a te 2 r ecor d cl ear l y i ndi cat es ot herwi se, we wi l l const r ue t he r epr esent at i on as a m er e m i st ake as opp osed t o an a tte m p t t o m i s l e a d .

W hi l e ap pel l antm aynothav e wai v ed h i s r i ght t o r ecei v e an i nst r uct i on u nderar t . 38. 23( a) of t he 3 C od e o f C ri m i na l P roc ed ure (r eg ard i ng t he ab i l i t y of t he j ury t o d i s reg ard t es t i m on y tha t w as ob t ai ne d c on t rary to th e l a w ), s u c h a n i n s tru c ti o n w a s i n c l u d e d i n th e c h a rg e . 2 to k il l him if he d id n o t write i t. Af ter a he ar ing , t he tr ial co urt den ied the moti on to 1 supp ress. Th erea f

ter, w hen the confession w as of fered into ev iden ce at trial, ap pellan t’s couns el sta ted, “N o Obj ect ion . . . .” By so st ati ng , al l compl ain ts re gar d in g the 2 confess ion ’s admi ss ibi li ty w ere w aiv ed. Hol

m es v. State, 24 8 S. W .3 d 19 4, 20 1 ( Tex . C r i m. App. 2008) . Therefore, appel lan t’ s first is sue is ov er ru led .

3 Issue 2 - Sufficiency of the Evidence Next, appel lan t attac ks the suffici ency of the ev ide nce to suppor t the conv icti on. It is unc lea r if appell ant is basing the attac k on both l eg al and factu al ins uff ic ien cy g ro unds or simply fact ual insu f f iciency. Neverthe less, since factu ally suf f icient evidence is nece ssarily

legally suf f icient, we w ill discuss on ly the forme r, and o v errule bo th issue s. Appe llant con ten ds tha t the ev iden ce w as factu ally def icient be cause the victim’s tes ti mony

w as unreli abl e and inc onsi ste nt. She als o had moti v e to mis re presentthe tr uth, he c onti nues. Admittedl y , t he record di sc los es that the v icti m had prev iou sl y deni ed bei ng ass aul ted b y

appel lan t. She nonethe les s t est ified to the c ontrar y at bar . So too did sh e re presentthather

pr ior deni als w ere made b ecaus e appel lan t war ned h e r that tel li ng any one woul d re sul t in her mother and appel lan t bei ng j ail ed and her si bli ng s b ein g pl acedT he co m pl ai nantwas on l y f i ft een when she m ar r i ed a nd g av e bi r t h t o a chi l d. 4 3 in foster ca re . So, the j ur

y had before i t a jus ti ficat ion for the inc onsi ste nci es, if it cared to bel iev e i t. W e furt her

note thatev ide nce ind ic ated the v icti m and ap pel lan t c onti nued t o be sex ual ly i nti mate af

ter she w as marr ied to another person, and had a chi ld. I ndeed, her 4 ex-h usban d onc e found the two in bed tog ether . Y et, ev en i f the rela ti onshi p was cons ensua l that w oul d no t neg ate t he c ri minal ity ar is ing from appell ant eng ag ing in s ex ual int ercourse w it h her

w hen s he was ele v en y ears o ld. And, to t he extent thatthe v icti m mayhav e been ang ry at appel lan t and her

mother for mov ing away

w it hout tel li ng her , t he record di sc los es that an ini ti al compl ain t abo ut t he assa u lt s was mad e to th e Rape Cri sis Center be fore the move occurred . So, on e cou ld re asona bly

i nfer t hat t he al leg ati ons ag ain st appel lan t were notmoti v ated by the mov e and her ang er ar is ing therefrom. T hatthe victim’s step-broth er den ied w itnessin g inap prop riate activity between his fa th e r and s tep- si ste r w as someth ing the jur y co uld hav e c onsi dered i n render ing i ts v erdict. Y et, it , al ong w it h the othe r ev ide nce menti oned ab ov e, c re ated li ttl e more tha n credi bil ity is sues for th e j ur y to re sol v e. Br

own v. Sta te, 27 0 S. W .3 d 56 4, 5 68 ( Tex . C r i m. App. 2008) , cer

t. denied, __ U .S. __, 1 29 S.Ct . 2075, 173 L.Ed .2d 1 139 ( 2009) ( noti ng the jury to be the e x clusiv e judge of witness credibility and the weig ht to be af forde d a w itness’ testim ony). In resolving tho se credib il it y issues, it could choo se no t only w hom but also w hat t o bel iev e. Ma rgra ves v. Sta te, 34 S. W .3d 912 , 919 (Tex. Cr im. A p p . 200 2), o v e r r ule d i n p a r t o n o t h e r gr o u n ds by L a s te r v . S ta te, 2 7 5 S.W .3d 5 12 ( Tex . C ri m. App.4

2009) . That, c oupl ed w it h appel lan t’ s o wn confess ion , l eads us to c oncl ude t hat t he ma nne r in w hich it decid ed th ose issue s w as no t ma nifestly unju st. Nor doe s the ev iden ce cited by app ellant as cont rary to the v erdict underm ine our conf iden ce in t h e ju ry’s deci sion . T hus, thatv erdict has the suppo rtof both leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce. The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.
Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.