H onor abl e Phi l l i p Vi ck , Seni orD i st r i ct Judge, si t t i ng b yassi gnm ent
. T ex. G ov ’ tC ode Ann. §§ 74. 056 1 a n d 7 5 .0 0 2 (a )( 3 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ).

T he i nd i ct m en tal l eg ed t he d el i v eryo fo ne g r am o rm or e, b utl es s t ha n f ou rg r am s of c oc ai ne . As 2 s u c h th e p rim a ry o ff e n s e w a s a s e c o n d d e g re e fe l o n y . See T ex. H eal t h & Saf et yC ode Ann. § 481. 112( c) (V ern on 20 03 ). T he i ndi ct m ental so al l eged a pr i or f el ony conv i ct i on, m aki ng t he off ense puni shabl e as a f i r st d e g re e fe l o n y . See T ex . P en al C od e A nn . §1 2.42 (b) ( V ern on S up p. 20 08 ). 

### NO. 07-08 -018 0-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 JU LY28, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ ERIC JEROME MACK, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 29 7 DIS T RI CTCOU RTOF TAR RA NTCOU NTY; TH 

### NO . 109 5388D ; H ON ORABLE EVER ETT Y OU NG , J UD GE 1



### _________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RAND UM OPI NI ON App ellant , Eric Jerom e Mack, pled guilty in ope n court and was convicted of delivery o f a c o n t ro ll e d s u b s t a n c e , e n h a n c e d
. P u n is h m e n t wa s a s s e s s e d b y a j u rya tfifty-f ive 2

### 2

years confinement and a $10,000 fine. Ap pel lan t contendsthe tria l cour t abu sed its dis creti on by : (1)admitti ng ev ide nce of hisgang af fili ati on duri ng the puni shmentphas e; and (2) failin g t o g ra n th is motio n to quash the venire pan el beca use th e trial court arraigned him at the conclu sion of the State ’s voir dire
. O rig inally app eale d to th e 2 Court nd 

### of Appeal s, thi s case was transfer re d to thi s C our t by the Texas Supreme Cou rtpursuant to i ts docket eq ual iz ati on efforts
. See T e x . G o v ’ tC o d e A n n . § 7 3
. 0 0 1 (V e r n o n 2 0 0 5 )
. We are una ware of

any conf lict between prece den t of the 2 Court of

Appe als and thatof

this nd 

### Cou rton a ny

rele vant i ss ue. SeeTe x . R
. Ap p. P
. 41 .3
. W e affi r m. I. Gang A

ffiliation Appel lan t as ser

ts the tr ial courtabus ed i ts dis creti on by admi tti ng extraneousg ang a f f ili a ti o n c haracter

ev ide nce in the a bsence of suffici ent e v ide nce from w hic h a rati onal factfinder

co uld find b eyond a re asona bledoubtthe g ang aff il iat ion ev ide nce was tr ue. W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t’ s ruli ng admi tti ng tes ti mony under an a buse of dis creti on sta ndard; McDon ald

v. Sta te, 179 S.W .3d 571 , 576 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 5), and w ill uph old the t ri al cour

t’ s deci si on if itis at leas t w it hin the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. Pa ge v. St at e, 213 S. W
. 3d 332 , 33 7 ( T ex . Cr i m . Ap p. 20 06) 

### . S e e H e rn a n d e z v. S ta te , 20 5 S
. W
. 3d 5 5 5 , 5 5 8 (T e x .A p p .--A m a rillo 2 0 0 6 , p e t. re f’d ). Art i c l e 3 7. 07, s ec t i on 3( a) of t he T ex as Code o fC r i m i nal P r oc edu r e g ov er ns t he a d m is s ib ili tyo f e v id e n c e d u rin g th e p u n is h m e n t p h a s e o f a n o n -c a p ita l ca s e . Si msv. S tate,In o r d e rfo rg a n g a ff ilia tio n e v id e n c e to b e r e le v a n t, th e S ta te m u s t s h o w ( 1 ) p r o o fo fth e g r o u p ’s 3 v i o l e n t a n d ille g a l a c ti v i ti e s , a n d (2 ) th e d e fe n d a n t’ s m e m b e rs h i p i n th e o rg a n i za ti o n . M a s o n v . S ta te , 905 S
. W
. 2d 57 0, 57 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 95 ). 

### 3 273 S
. W
. 3d 291 , 29 5 ( T ex . Cr i m . Ap p. 20 08)
. T he c ur r entv er s i on of t hi s prov i s i on al l ows for t he a dm i ssi on o f

a nye vi de nce t he t r i al co urt“ de em s r el eva ntt o sen t en ci ng ” and provi de s, i n pe rt i ne ntpart , as fol l ow s: Regar dl es s of

t he pl ea an d whet hert he pu ni s hm entbe as s es s ed byt he j udg e ort he j ury , ev i den c e m aybe offer ed byt he s t at e and t he defend antas t o a ny m att ert he c ourtde em s r el ev antt o s ent enc i ng, i nc l udi ng butno tl i m i t ed t o t he pr i orc r i m i nal r ec or d o f t he defend ant , hi s gene r al r epu t at i on, hi s c har ac t er , an opi ni on r ega r di ng hi s c har ac t er , . . . and , notwi t hs t and i ng Rul es 404 and 40 5, T ex as Rul es of

E v i den c e, an yot herev i den c e o f an ex t r ane ous c r i m e o rba d ac tt hati s s how n be y ond a r eas ona bl e d oub tbyev i den c e t o h av e b een c o m m itt e d b y th e d e fe n d a n t o r fo r w h ic h h e c o u ld b e h e ld cr im in a lly r es pon s i bl e, r ega r dl es s of whet herhe ha s pr ev i ous l ybe en c harged w i t h o r fin a llyco n v ic te d o f th e cr im e o r a c t. Te x. C o d e C ri m . Pro c. An n . art
. 37
. 0 7 , § 3 (a)(1 ) (Ve rno n Su p p . 20 0 8 ). T es t i m onyr ega r di ng a d efend ant ’ s af f i l i at i on wi t h a ga ng m aybe r el ev antan d a d m is s ib le a t th e p u n is h m e n t s ta g e o f a t ria l t o sh o w t h e c h a ra c te r o f th e a c c u s e d
. Se e B e a s le y v. S ta te , 9 0 2 S .W .2 d 4 5 2 , 4 5 6 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 9 5 ); A n d e rs o n v. S ta te , 90 1 S. W
. 2d 946 , 95 0 ( T ex . Cr i m . Ap p. 19 95)
. I n Be as ley , t h e C o u rt h e l d t h a t i t i s n o tne ce ssa ry 3 t o l i nk t he a ccused t o t he b ad act s orm i scond uctgen eral l yeng ag ed i n bygan g m em be r s, s o l ong as t he fac tf i nde r i s ( 1) pr ov i ded wi t h ev i den c e o f t he defend ant ’ s ga ng m em bers hi p, ( 2) pr ov i ded wi t h ev i den c e of c har ac t er and r epu t at i on of ga ng, ( 3) no tr equ i r ed t o d et er m i ne i f defend ant c om m i t t ed t he bad ac t s or m i s c ond uc t , and ( 4) onl y as k ed t o c ons i derr epu t at i on o r c h a ra c te r o f th e a c c u s e d
. Be as ley , 9 0 2 S .W .2 d a t 4 5 7
. S e e S ie rr a v. S ta te , 26 6 S
. W
. 3dO ff i c e r G i b s o n a l s o t e s t i f i e d Ap p e l l a n t wa s n o t i n c u s t o d y wh e n h e m a d e t h e a d m i s s i o n s a nd t he 4 a d m is s io n s w e r e g iv e n f r e e ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily.

At t r i al , Appel l antt est i f i ed a s fol l ows: 5 Q
. D o y ou rec al l on Ju l y7 , 20 06 , t ha tw he n y ou w ere as k ed i f y ou w e re a m e m b er of a th s tre e t g a n g , y o u s a i d y o u w e re a n e x 2 3 S tre e t B l o o d a n d y o u s i g n e d o ffo n th a t, c o rr e c t? rd A. I used t o ha ng wi t h. Q
. W a i t a m i n u te , y o u s i g n e d o ffth a t y o u w e re a n e x 2 3 S tre e t B l o o d ; i s th a t c o rr e c t? rd A
. Y e s . T h e yh a d m e i n th e s y s te m a s a B l o o d , s o I to l d th e m y e s . I d i d n ’ t l i e a b o u t i t. 

### 4 7 2 , 7 7 ( T e x .A p p .– H o u s to n [1 D is t. ] 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t. ); Dean v. S tate, Nos
. 02- 07- 028 7- CR , 02 - st 07- 028 8- CR , 02 - 07- 028 9- CR , 200 8 W L 483 139 0, at * 4 ( T ex . Ap p. –Fo rtW ort h Nov
. 6, 20 08, pet
. r ef ’ d) ( not des i gna t ed for pub l i c at i on)
. T he ev i den c e mus tal s o s how t he pur pos e o f t he gan g t o whi c h t he defend antbe l ong s s o t hatt he fac tf i nd er can c onc l ude whet her m e m b e rs h ip in t h e g a n g is a p o s iti v e o r n e g a tive ch a ra c te rt r a it o f th e d e fe n d a n t. Se e An der s on , 9 0 1 S .W .2 d a t 9 5 0
. Att r i al , O ff i c erGl en Gi bs on, Ci t yof Gr and P r ai r i e, t es t i f i ed t hat , i n Ma r c h 1 997 , he ar r es t ed Ap pel l ant
. I n s ubs equ enten c oun t er s , Off i c erG i bs on t es t i f i ed Ap pel l antad m i t t ed he was a m em berof

t he 23 B l ood Gan g. He f urt her t es t i f i ed t hat he was fam i l i arwi t h t he

rd gan g b ec aus e t heyop er at ed i n h i s j ur i s di c t i on and en gag ed i n c r i m i nal act i vi t ys uc h a s na r cot i cs, dri ve-byshoo t i ng s, r ob be r i es, and car -j acki ng s. 4 Ap pel l antt es t i f i ed he t ol d Off i c er Gi bs on t hat he hun g wi t h t he Bl ood s –no tt hathe was a m e m b e r. F u rth e r in to h is te s tim o n y, h o w e v e r, A p p e lla n t a d m itt e d w e a rin g a t -s h irt i n ja il t hatr epr es ent ed he was a Cal i for ni a B l ood m em beran d r es pon ded af f i r ma t i v e l yw h e n a s k ed i f he was a Bl ood ga ng m em berdu r i ng a j ai l c l as s i f i c at i on i nt erv i ew i n J ul y20 06. 5T he t r i al courtdet er m i nes t he t hr eshol d i ssue o ft he a dm i ssi bi l i t yof r el ev antev i denc e du ri ng t he 6 p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e w h i l e th e ju ry d e te rm i n e s w h e th e r th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f h a s b e e n s a ti s fie d b yth e p a rty o ff e rin g th e e v i d e n c e . See Sier ra , 2 66 S
. W
. 3d at79 ( ci t i ng M itc h e l l v . S ta te , 931 S. W
. 2d 9 50, 954 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 99 6). H ere , aft er ad m i t t i ng t he evi de nc e o f Ap pe l l an t ’ s ga ng m em be rsh i p, t he t ri al co urt pro pe rl yi ns t ruc t ed t he j uryi tco ul d n ot c on s i de r any ev i dence ofan al l eged ext r aneou s cr i m e orb ad act un l es s the S t ate ha d pro ven A pp el l an th ad c om m i t t ed the a c t“b ey on d a rea s on ab l e do ub t
. ” See H ul z ar v. S ta te , 12 S. W
. 3d 4 79, 480 - 81 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 0) ( hol di ng t hat , i fext r aneou s ev i dence i s off er ed d ur i ng th e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e , t h e tri a l c o u rt m u s t sua sp onte p ro v i d e a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t i n s tru c ti o n ).

T h e p u rp o s e o f a n a rr a i g n m e n t i s to fi x th e a c c u s e d ’ s i d e n ti tya n d h e a r h i s o r h e r p l e a . T ex. C ode 7 C ri m . P roc . A nn . art
. 26
. 02 (Ve rno n 2 00 9). 

### 5 U n d e r Be asley and An der s on , t he St at e m ett he ev i den t i arypr edi c at e forad m i s s i on of ev i den c e o f

A ppe l l ant ’ s ga ng af

f i l i at i on and t he j urydet er m i ned whet hert he St at e’ s l ev el of proof was s uf f i c i ent
. Ac c or di ngl y , we f i nd t hat t he t r i al c ourt di d not abu s e i t s di s c r et i on

6 i n adm i t t i ng e v i den c e o f A ppe l l ant ’ s ga ng m em bers hi p. Se e Pier c e v. United States , 23 4 S .W .3 d 2 6 5 , 2 7 2 (T e x .A p p .– W a c o 2 0 0 7 , p e t. re f’d ). A p p e lla n t’s fir s t p o in t o f e rr o ris ov er r ul ed. I I . A r r ai gnment T he T ex as Code of

Cr i m i nal P r oc edu r e p r ov i des t hat , aft eri ndi c t m ent , t her e s hal l be a n a rr a ig n m e n t in a ll fe lo n y c a s e s a n d m is d e m e a n o r c a s e s p u n is h a b le b y im p ris o n m e n t. T ex . Code Cr i m . P r oc . A nn. art
. 26. 01 ( Ve r non 20 09)
. Al t hou gh t he Code doe s no ts etan y 7 o u tsid e li m it fo r th e t im e o f a rr a ig n m e n t, t h e C o u rt o f C rim in a l A p p e a ls h a s u n ifo rm lyh e ld t hat , whi l e i ti s prope rt o a r r ai gn an ac c us ed befor e t he j uryi s s el ec t ed, t he fac tt hati twas d o n e a fte r th e ju ry w a s sw o rn a n d im p a n e le d p re s e n ts n o e rr o r. T h o m p s o n v. S ta te , 447 S .W .2 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 2 ( T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 6 9 ); R u s s e ll v. S ta te , 20 6 S
. W
. 79 , 79 ( T ex . Cr i m . Ap p. 1 9 1 8 ). S e e B a rn e sv. B e to , 2 4 7 F
. S u p p . 4 3 5 , 4 3 6 (D .C
. T e x . 1 9 6 4 ), a f f’d , 35 3 F.2d 20 8 ( 5 th

### 6

C ir. 1 9 6 5 ), c er

t
. de nied , 38 3 U. S. 92 0, 86 S
. Ct
. 918, 15 L. Ed
. 2d 675 ( 196 6)
. Her e, A ppe l l ant w a s a r r a ig n e d o u ts id e th e p r e s e n c e o f th e ju ry pr

ior to t he j urybe i ng s wor n a nd i m pan el ed. Furt her , A ppe l l ant m ak es no s howi ng t hat he was pr ej udi c ed t her eby
. A c c or di ngl y , we f i nd t he t r i al c o u rtd i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n b yd e n y i n g A p p e l l a n t ’ s mo t i o n t o q u a s h. A p p e lla n t’s s e c o n d p o in t o f e rr o r is o v e rr u le d
. 

### Conclusion The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.
Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Ju sti ce Do not p ubl is h.