### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00460-CR

Brandon De

wayne Johns on, Appel

lant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 20,293-CR, HONORABLE ED MAGRE, JUDGE PRESI DING A j ury found appel

la nt Brandon Deway

ne Johnson gui lty

of aggravated

kidn appi ng, f orwh i ch th e d i str i ct c our t as se ss ed pu n i sh men t at tw en ty years’ i m pri sonm en t. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 20 .0 4 ( West Su pp. 200 2) . Ap pellant co nt en ds he is en titl ed to a new tri al

be caus e the

court report er fai le d to record cert ai

n be nch conferen ces du r ing ju ry se lec t io n. We will o ve r rule t his
co nt ent ion and affirm the c onvict ion.

Af ter the j ury

panel entered the courtr oom and was s worn, the court wel comed t he panel is ts and began

dis cussi ng the qual

if ic ations f or jury servi ce. THE CO URT: I’m

going ove

r the quali

fi cati o ns f or jury servi ce. As I read

these qua lif icat ions i f you f eel you are un

qual i f i ed, rai se y our h a nd and when I finish r ea din g t he list t he n st ep up t o t he be nc h a nd we ’ll dis cuss wh

ether or not you are qual

if ie d or disqual

if ie d. (Stat uto ry Qual

if ic ations Rea

d) THE COUR

T: If an y of you f ee l you don ’t m

ee t an y of those quali

fi cations, rai se y

our hand and I’l l b rin g you up to t he b ench

one at a tim

e.2 Fi rst ro w? Second row? JUROR: I t ake a medica t ion fo r p ain. THE CO URT: We’l

l get to excuses later. These are justqua lif icat ions. If you ’ve gotan ex cu se an d h av e to be h ere or t here, y

ou’re a hundred an

d ten ye ars o ld , yo u’v

e got sev en teen ki ds a t hom e – tel l me those l ater. Ri ght n ow, I j ust wa

nt to know i

f you’re a qual i f i ed j uror. The gentlem

an i n the b ack row. Do you wan t t o step up here? (O ff Reco rd Discu ssio n) THE CO URT: Numb er 114 is excused. Were there other han

ds? Th e gentl em an on the thi

rd row. (O ff Reco rd Discu ssio n) THE CO URT: Numb er 76 is excused. An yb ody on the f

ourt h row? The lady on the la st row. You may step up here. (O ff Reco rd Discu ssio n) THE CO URT: Numb er 38 is excused. An y other h ands? Yes , si r. (O ff Reco rd Discu ssio n) THE CO URT: Al

l ri ght. No ot her hands? At t his po int , t he co ur t t ur ne d t o t he su bje ct o f e xe mp t io ns fr o m ju r y du t y.

Appell ant cont ends that appellate rule 13.1 was violated because the court report er fai le d to ma ke a r eco rd of t he fo ur bench c onfe re nces not ed a bove . T ex. R. A pp. P. 13 .1. Rul

e 13.13

requires the cou rt r epor ter t o “att end court sessi ons and make a f ull recor d of the pro ceedings un less excused by agreem ent of the parties .” Id
. rule 13.1(a). Appell ant argues t hat because the parties h ad not ag re ed to di sp ense

wi th th e r ec ordi

n g of th e b en ch con f er en ce s, th e r ep orter’ s f

ai l ur e to ma ke a record of the conf

eren ces waserror. A

ppe l l an t rel i eson t he o pinion in Tanguma v . State , 47 S.W.3d 663, 67 3- 74 (Tex . A

pp .—C orp usCh

ri sti 200 1, pet . r ef’d) . T he co ur t he ld in t ha t ca se t ha t un de rrule 13.1(a ), it i s error for a court report er to fai l to record a bench

conferen ce that occurs after trial proceedin gs hav e begun wit hou t t he exp licit agr eement of the parti es. Id . at 674. T he court ruled t hat cas e law int er pr et inga predecesso r rule, holdin g that a defendan

t must object t o t he repo rt er’s f ail ure to record

proceedin

gs i n order to preserve the i ssue f or appeal, was not app licable to violat ions of rul e 13.1(a) and that the e rror wasnot wai

ve d by the def endan t’s f ail ure to obj ect. Id
. But see Polasek v. State , 16

S.W .3d 82 , 88 -8 9 ( Te x . A

pp .—H ous ton

[1 st Di st.] 20 00 , pe t . r ef’ d) ( rule 13.1(a ) conf l i cts wi th Tex . Gov’ t Code A

nn . § 52.04 6 (W est 199 8) an d i s void ). Assuming w itho ut dec idingt hat ru le 13. 1( a) was violat ed a nd tha t ap pe l l an t did n ot fo r feit hi s righ

t t o compla

in on appeal by fai li ng to o bj ect at t rial , we must deci de i f the error requires that appel la

nt’s conv iction be rev

ersed. Appel

la nt argues that the erro r defi es harm an aly sis b ecause it is i mpossi ble to deter mi

ne whether prejudici

al error o ccurred d uring the unrecorded co nf erences. He asserts that the fai

lure to record t he conf

erences s hould b e deem

ed reversi ble error as a m

atter of l aw. We di sagree.

Exceptfo rce r t ain fed er al c o nst it ut io na l er r o r s la be led by t he Un it ed St at es Su pr eme Cou rt as “ stru ctu ral,” n o err oris categoricall

y i mm une to a harml

ess error an

al y si s. Cain v. Sta te , 947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. Crim . App. 1997) . A s truc tura l err or i s a con sti tutiona l depri va ti on4

affect ingth e f

ra mew ork wi th i n wh i ch th e tr ia l proce eds, rather than si mpl y a n error in the

trial proces s i tself
. Arizona v. Fulmin ante , 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991). T he f ai lure of the court report er to record a be

nc h c onf ere nc e i s n ot a structural

error. Tanguma , 47 S. W.3d at 675 ; see F ulminante , 499 U .S. at 309-1 0 (l

i sti ng e rrors dee med st ru ct ur al). To t he con trar y , i t i s a proc ed ura l de f ec t or irregul arity that must be di sregarded unless a sub stantial

righ t was af f ected. Tanguma , 47 S.W.3d at 676 ; see Tex . R. A

pp. P. 44 .2(b ). Dur ingthe f

i rst thre e un

recorde d be

nch c onf eren ces , three pan el i sts we re excl uded f rom j ury servi ceon

the b asis of

a statutory

di squa l i f i cation. Durin

g the la st unrecorded conferen ce, a pa nelist wa s a pp ar ent ly det er mined t o be q ua lified for servi ce. If the f

ai lure to record t he b ench conferen ces h ar med appe l l an t, i t wa s i n de pri v i n g h i m of a r ec ord adeq ua te to show er ro r in t he
cou rt ’s ru l i

n gs . B ut a

pp el l an t, w h o wa s p re se

n t wi th cou n se l , di d n ot ob j ec t wh en pa n el i sts 114, 76, and 38 were dis qual if

ie d, nor did he

obje ct when the f

ourt h pan el is t intervi ewed at the ben ch was deem ed qua lif ied fo r se rvice. Ind epe ndent of an y duty i m pos ed on the court report er by

rule 13.1(a) to recor d the bench conf

erences, it w as a ppe llant’s d ut y to objec t t o a ny im proper rulin

g by the trial courtreg ard

i ng the qua l i f i ca ti ons f orj ury serv i ce. See Tanguma , 47 S .W.3d at 6 78 (r epo rt er’s f ail ure to record bench

conferences did not excuse defen dant from duty to pro perly

preserve error in

ruli ngs on ch al l engesf or caus e); Tex. R. A

pp. P. 33. 1; see also Mayo v. Stat e , 4 S
. W. 3d 9, 12 ( T ex . Cr im. Ap p. 1999) (defen

dant mus t t im el y obj ect or show signi

fi cant harm from servi ce by dis qual if ie d j uror); Ladd v. State , 3 S.W.3d 547, 562 (Tex. Crim . App. 1999 ) (f ai l ure to o bj ect when paneli st excused f or cause forfei

ts iss ue on ap peal); Mays v. Sta te , 726 S.W.2d 937, 950 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (f ail ure to obj ect wh

en pan el i st excus ed f

or econom

i c h ardshi p f orfe i ts i ssue on a

ppea l ).5 Appe llantdi

d n ot obje ct to the

di stri ct c ourt’ s r

ul i ng s r eg ard

i ng the qua l i f i ca ti ons of t he fou r p anelist s inte rview ed bythe cou rt du ri ng the un rec orde d b en

ch con f ere nc es . He doe s n ot co nt end that a panelis

t was erroneously

determi ned to be di squal

if ie d, or t hat

t his ruling de pr ive d h im of a la wf ul ly co ns t it ut ed ju r y. See Jones v . State , 982 S.W.2d 386, 394 (Tex. Crim . App. 1998) (erroneous excusi

ng of pan el is t is reversi

ble onl y i f def endan t deprived o f law fully

constituted

j ury ). Nei ther d oes he con

tend that a d i squa l i f i ed j uror sat on

the j ury to hi s si gni f i can t harm
. See Mayo , 4 S. W.3 d at 12. Unde r t he circ umst ance s, t he f ail ure of the court repo rter t o recor d the four ben ch
co nfere nces at which t he cou rt h ea rd a nd rul ed on th e p an el i sts ’ q ua l i f i ca ti ons f orserv i ce, i f error, di d not af f ect app el l an t’s s ubs tantial ri ghts
. We re so lve the issues ra ised by app ellant a gainst him, and w e affirm the j udg men t of
co nvictio n.

Mack Ki dd, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, Patterson and Puryear Af fi rmed File d: April 18, 2002 Publish