### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-00-00729-CR Kenneth Smith, Appel

lant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE COUN TY COUR T AT LAW N O. 7 OF

TRAVI S COUNTY NO. 537,624, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appe llantKe nne t h S mit h w as co nvi ct ed by a jury of the offense

of a ssa ul t. SeeTe x. Penal Co de Ann. § 22 .0 1( a) (1 ) ( West Su pp. 200 1) . T he t rial co ur t asse ssed app ellant’ s pu nishment at co nfine men t in c o un t y jailfor 180 days and a f in e of $2,000. Th e c ourt s

uspe nd ed i m pos i ti on of t he se nt en ce an d p lac ed ap pe llant o n c o mmun it y su pe r visio n fo rt wo yea r s, wit h c o nfine me nt fo r fi fteen da ys a s a co nd it io n o f co mmun it y su pe r visio n. I n his so le poi nt of error, app ellant c omp lains of the court’s jury

charge. The j udgme

nt wil l b e aff irm ed. Appe llantasserts: “The

trial cou rt e rre d i n re f us i n g a pp el l an t’s re qu est to char ge t he j ury on the l ess er i nc l uded off en se of Class C as sau l t.” The stat ute under w hich appell ant was convicted pro vides: § 22.01 Assau lt (a) A per so n co mmi

t s an o ffense if the per so n:2 (1) int en t io na lly, knowi

ngl y , or reckl

ess l y caus es b odi l

y i nj ury to another, in cl udin g the person’s spouse; (2) i nte nti ona l l y orkn o win gly

t hr ea t en s a no t he rwit h immin en t bo di ly inju ry, i nc l udi ng th e pers on’ s sp ouse; or (3) int en t io na lly o rkn o win gly ca us es ph y si ca l con tact wi th ano t her when t he pe rs on kno ws o r sho uld r eas ona bl y believe t hat t he o t her will rega rd t he contact as offensi

ve or provocat iv

e. (b) An off en se u nde r Sub section

(a)(1) i s a C l ass A m i sdemean or, exc ept . . . . [exception n

ot appl ic abl

e to t hi s case] (c) An off ense un der Subsecti on (a)(2) o r (3) is a Cl ass C m is dem eanor, except . . . . [ excepti on not applicabl e to t hi s case]
Id. § 22.01. The recor d refl ects appellan t’s objection as foll

ows: THE CO URT: W i th regards t o t he Court ’s ch arge, a re the re any objections? [PROS ECUTO R]: Not from the State , Your Honor. [DEF ENSE COUNSEL ]: Judge, th e def ense h as an ob j ec ti on i n th at t he Cl ass C misd eme ano r, a si

mpl e assaul t, is a lesser i

ncl uded off ense, is omitt ed fr om t he jur y charg e. Ot her t he n that, there are no objections. THE COUR

T: Ok ay. Tha nk you. Fi fteen m in utes per si de; f

i v e- m i n ute an d o ne - minu t e w ar nin g. Ok ay. [Open court, def

endan t and j ury pres en t.] [Charge of

the C ourt was re ad to the j ury .] The asserted error was not pro perly preserved f

or appellate revie

w.3

In ord er to pr ese rve er ro r r elat ingto the j ury ch arg e there m us t ei the r b e a n ob j ec ti on or areque sted cha

rge. Boles v. Sta te , 5 98 S .W. 2d 2 74, 278 (T ex. Cr. A pp. 198 0). We have i

nterpreted art ic le s 36.14 and 36. 15 a s deal in g with those two disti

nct si tua tions: an objection to the charge an d a requested spec ial instruction , re s pe ct ive ly. Frank

v. State , 68 8 S .W .2d

86 3 ( Te x . C r. A

pp . 19 85 ). U

n der a rt. 36.14 th e def

en da n t i s req ui re d to object and obtain an adverse ru ling to pr ese rve any error. Howev

er, un der ar t . 3 6. 15 , if t he de fendant re que st s a sp ecial cha rg e no obj ec ti on is requi red to pres erv e error. Guzmanv. State , 567 S.W.2d 188 , 1 90 ( Te x. Cr . A pp . 19 78 ). A

l l th at is n ec es sa ry un der a rt. 36. 15 is t hat t he requested charge be i n w ri tin g or di ctated to the c ourt reporter. Vasqu ez v. Stat

e , 919 S.W .2d 433 , 435 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1996 ). Appe llantdid no t pr ese nt in writ ing no r d id he dict at e fo r t he r eco rd t he i ns truc ti on
on the l ess er i nc l uded off en se that he

wan ted the tria l courtto in

cl ude i n the j ury ch

arge; theref

ore, app ellant di

d n ot pre serv e error

i n the m an ner al l owed b y arti cle 36.1 5. SeeT ex . Co de Cr im. Proc. Ann. art . 36 .15 (West Sup p. 2 001 ); Vasquez , 919 S.W.2d at 435.

Appe llantdid not present hi s obj ection to the charge i n wri ting. SeeT ex . Co de Cr im. Pro c. Ann. art . 36. 14 (West Supp . 200 1). Assumi ng that appellant’s oral

obj ec ti on was sufficient to com pl y wi th th e s tatute req ui ri ng dicta ti on of the obj ec ti on, ap pe l l an

t did n ot obta i n a rul i ng f rom t he trial cou rt; th er ef ore , he f ai l ed to pres erv e error f

or appel l ate rev i ew. See Vasquez , 919 S.W.2d at 435. Mo re ove r, app ellant d id no t dist inctly spe cify his gr ou nd of ob j ection. SeeT ex . Co de Cr im. Proc. An n. art. 36.14; Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)( 1). Section 22.01 of the Penal Code provides f

or t wo
se pa ra te Class C m is dem eanor off enses . Tex. Penal

Code A n n . § 2 2.0 1. A

pp el l an t di d n ot de si gn ate whi ch Cla ss C mis de mea no rhe be lieve d a pp lica ble in vie w o f t he ev ide nc e. Ap pe llant did not sta te whether he b el ie ved the ev id ence ent itled him to t he lesse r includ ed o ffense inst ru ct ion u nder t he provisions of

section 22.01( a)(2) or of

(a)(3). See id.4 In vi ew of the ev i de nc e, e ve n i f the cl ai med err or h ad be en prop erl y pre serv ed

f or appe l l ate review, the trial

cour t di d n ot err in

fai li ng to subm

it to t he j ury a ch

arge on the le sser in cl uded offense . “A d efenda nt ’s o wn t est imony that he comm

itted no off ense, or testim

ony w hich ot herwise sh owstha t no of f en se occurred at al l , i s n ot adequate to rais e the i ssueof a lesser i ncl uded off en se.” Lofton v. State , No . 85 -00 , slip op . at 7; 20 01 T ex. Crim. Ap p. LEX IS 31, at 8 ( Te x. Cr im. App. May

2, 20 01 )
. He r e, ap pe llant t es t ified he did no t as sa ult t he alle ge d v ict im and off ered t he tes ti m ony of two w i tne ss eswh

o co rr o bo r at ed ap pe llant ’s t es t imo ny t ha t he did no t as sa ult any one. Appe llant’s d efense was t hat no o ffense o ccu rr ed. The trial cou rt di d n ot er r i n f ai l i n g to charge the j ury on a l

esser i ncl uded off ense. A ppel la nt’s poin t o f error is

overruled. The j udgme

nt is aff irm ed.

Carl

E. F. Dall

y, Jus tice Be fo r e J us t ice s Kid d, Pa t t er so n a nd Da lly * Af fi rmed File d: Jul

y 26, 2001 Do No t Publis

h5 * Bef ore Carl E. F. Dal l

y , Ju dge (re ti red ), C ourt of

Cri m i na l Appeal s, si ttin g by ass i gnm en t. See Tex . Gov’ t Code A

nn . § 74.00 3(b ) (We st 1998 ).