### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10 - 23 - 00371 - CR JEREMY WAYNE STRICKLAND , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022 - 820 - C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jeremy Wayne Strickland appeals his conviction for continuous sexual a buse of a
child. After finding him guilty, the jury assessed punishment at sixty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

— Institutional Division. In his sole issue, Strickland contends the trial court erred in allowing admission of extraneous
offense evidence. We affirm.Strickland v. State Page 2 Extraneous Offense Evidence In his sole issue on appeal, Strickland asserts the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the State to elicit testimony from him about his extraneous drug usage. Specifically, on cross

- examination, Strickland testified that he tested positive for methamphetamines in 2013, 2018, and in 2023. He argues that he did not open the door for this evidence, and it was not admissible under any legally correct theory.
S TANDARD OF R EVIEW AND A PPLICABLE L AW We review the trial court's decision to admit contested testimony under an abuse
of discretion standard. Walters v. State , 247 S.W.3d 204, 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We will uphold the trial court's decision if it is within the zone of reasonable disagreement.
Id . The trial court's evidentiary ruling must be upheld if it is reasonably supported by the record and is correct under any applicable theory of law. Johnson v. State , 490 S.W.3d 895, 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Because an accused must be tried only for the offense for which he is charged and may not be tried for a collateral crime or for being a criminal generally, extraneous offense evidence is usually not admissible "to prove a person's character in order to s how that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." T EX
. R. E VID
. 404(b)(1); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). When a defendant offers evidence of his good character, the prosecutor can admit evidence of the defendant’s character to rebut the implication left by defendant’sStrickland v. State Page 3

character evidence. T EX
. R. E VID
. 404(a)(2)(A); Harrison v. State , 241 S.W.3d 23, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Once a defendant opens the door to evidence pertinent to a character trait, trial courts may permit the State to introduce evidence to impeach the defendant’s evidence concerning the trait at issue. Wheeler v. State , 67 S.W.3d 879 , 886 n.16 (Tex. Crim. App. 200 2 ).
Discussion K.S.’s older brother, Jeremy, testified on behalf of Strickland. He testified that he
does not believe his father sexually assaulted K.S. The prosecutor asked him: “So that’s why you don’t believe her, because she’s lied to you?” Jeremy responded by volunteering: “My father is not a bad person. I don’t believe it.” Evidence to show Strickland’s character became relevant to impeach the impression left by Jeremy that Strickland was not a “bad person.” See Harrison , 241 S.W.3d at 27. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted the State to cross

- examine Strickland
abo ut his past drug use. Id . We overrule Strickland’s sole issue.
Conclusion We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

STEVE SMITH JusticeStrickland v. State Page 4

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed August 22, 2024 Do not p ublish [ CRPM]