### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 180 -CR

Edwar d Wa yne Kinc he on , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 331S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-06 -30 1791 , HO NORAB LE B OB PERK INS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Ed wa rd Way ne Ki nc he on

app eal s f

ro m hi s c on vic tio n b y

a jur y of thr e e c ounts of ag g ravated sexual assault of a c hild and three counts of indec ency with a child by

exposure. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. §§ 21.11 (West 2003) (indec ency by exposure); 22.021 (West Supp. 2007) (ag g ravated sexual assault). The jury acquitted him of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child. These c harg es ar o s e o u t o f ap p ellant’s ac ts with reg ard to a single child and we re trie d toge ther. The jury

assessed twe nty -five year sentenc es for

eac h of the thre e sexual assault counts and five-year sentenc es for

eac h of the thre e indec ency counts. In a sing le point of err or on appea l, he
c h a ll e n g e s anin s tr

u c ti o ng iv e nb y

th e tr ia l c o urt t

h a t t h e s e n te n c e s w o u ld

r unc o n c ur

r e n tl y . We aff irm the judg ment of convic tion.2 A f t e r t h e j u ry re nd e re d it s v e rd ic t and

pr ior to c omm e nc e me nt o f t

he se nte nc ingph a se of the trial, the trial judge confirme d that appellant had made an application for probation. He then
a dv i s e d th e j ur y:
L adies a nd g entlemen of the jury , let me state to you rig ht now—this will be part of the jury

char g e tomorrow, but I

will say this to y ou rig ht now beca use I know p eo p l e a re cu ri o u s ab o u tth i s s o rt o f t h i n g. Be cause of the fa ct that we ha ve tried a ll of these counts togethe r, whatever punis hme nt you

me te out in

the se c a se s a s to the se six c ounts that y ou fo un d h im g uilty on, all of these se ntence s will run concur rently with eac h other. So, fo r i n s t ance, if y ou wer e to say —if y ou wer e to g ive probation to the defe ndant, then all of those probations would run at the same time. On t h e o t her hand, if you wer e to g ive penitentiar y time to the defen d an t , all of those sente nces will run at the same time be cause we have tried a ll of these ca ses tog ether
. I f we wer e trying the m one at a time or something like t h at , we ll, then y ou would run i nto a si tuation wher e these sentenc es could be stacked, but that would not be the c ase he re. Appellant’s c ounsel did not object. The c ourt then re cesse d until the next m orning for the se ntencing phase to proc eed.

At the close of

the evidenc e of the sentenc ing pha se, the trial cour t delivere d the
c ha rg e to t he jur y . T he c ha

rg e inc lud e d th e fo llo wi ngins tr uc tio ns :
Pr ob a tio n mu st b e g ra

nte d b y the c ourt if the jur y re c omm e nd [s] it i n th e ir ve rd ic t. I f you

do no t de sir e to r e c omm e nd pr ob a tio n y ou wi ll s ay

no thi nga bo ut i t in your v e rd ic t. All the punishment y ou assess will run concurre nt since all these a lleg ations wer e tried at the same time.Whether multiple se ntence s run concur rently or conse cutively

is a matter lef

t to the trial 1 court’s discr etion. Ba rro w v . S tate , 2 07 S.W. 3d

37 7, 38 0 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 20 06 ); se e als o Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 3.03 (West Supp. 2007); Tex . Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ar t. 42.08 (We st 2 00 6) ; see ge nerally State v. Crook, No. PD-0001-07, 2008 Te x . Crim. App. L EXI S 157 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 6, 2008)
. 3 Appellant’s c ounsel did not object to the instruction. I n closing argument, he urg ed the jury to give appellant probation or, in the alternative, a split sentenc e, g iving him pr obation on some counts and a prison sente nce on othe rs. He explained elig ibilit y for parole as set forth in the j ury char g e. The jury asked no questions during its deliberations. After the jury assessed the sentenc es, the trial c ourt
se nte nc e d th e a

pp e lla nt a s r e c omm e nd e d b y

the jur y and state d th a t t he sen ten c e s w ou ld
r unc o n c ur r e n t l y. On appea l, a

ppellant argues that beca

use the trial judg e had the discretion to “stac k” the sentenc es, the trial c ourt’s instruction to the jury reg ar ding c oncurr ent sentenc ing w as a misstatement of law . Acknowle dg ing that h i s counsel did not object to the cha rg e, appe llant
rec og nizes that he must demonstrate eg reg ious harm. Se e Al ma nz a v . S

tate , 686 S.W .2d 157, 172 (Tex. C ri m. App. 1984). He ur g es that the e rror “undoubtedly

led to the impositi on of a long er sentenc e for

the def endant.” Th e ru le fo r i ns tr

uc ti on s reg ard ingc on c ur re nt a nd c on se c uti ve se nte nc ingis
c o n tr o l l e d

b y Mc Go wan v . S

tate , 664 S.W .2d 355, 358-59 (Te x . Crim. App. 1984), which held that th e ins truction did not constitute rever sible err or. He re, r eg ardle ss of the fa ct that the cour t had d i s c r e t i o nt o c h o o s e t o r

unth e s e n t e n c e s c o n s e c u t i v e l y, the cour t electe d not to do s o . The c ourt 1 advised the parties and instructed the jury that the sentenc es would run concur rently and, indeed, that is how appellant wa s sentence d. Id. (whe re the trial cou rt an s wered juror que stions—over4

de fe nd ant’ s o bje c tion—by te lli ngthe jur

y that th e re wo uld

be se pa ra te se nte nc e s and

the y wo uld
run conc urre ntly , appellant wa s n o t h ar m ed wher e the c ourt “instructe d the jury that the sentenc e would run conc urre ntly

and indee d that is how appellant wa s sentence d”). B ased on a policy t hat “the law should requ i re j u ri es to make infor med and intellig ent dec isions based on eve ry piece of information ava ilable,” we cannot say the t rial court abused its discre tion in giving this inst ruction to th e jury
. See Halibur ton v . S tate , 578 S.W .2d 726, 728-29 (Te x . Crim. App. 1979) (trial c ourt do e s n ot e rr

in g ivi ngins tr

uc tio n c on c e rn ingwh e the r s e nte nc e s w ill ru n c on c ur re ntl y ); se e als o Go rd on v . S tate , 6 33 S.W. 2d

87 2, 87 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 82 ); Di c k so n v . S tate , 986 S.W .2d 799, 804 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, pet. re f’d)
.

I n a ny e ve nt, a

pp e lla nt h a s f a ile d to de mon str a te ha

rm , mu c h le ss e g re g iou s h arm . In Haliburton , the cour

t of criminal appe als rea soned: [W ]e are una

ble to presume ha

rm in this si tuation. Kn o wl edge that the sentenc es would run conc urre ntly

is a two-edg ed sword. T he information could have be en used to i nc re a se the punis hme nt o r, jus t a s e a sil y , u se d to re du c e the numbe r o f y ears to avoid excessive punishment. We c annot deter mine from the rec ord which path the jury took and, with these a lternatives, ha rm will not be presumed.
57 8 S. W.2 d at 72 8; see M cGowan , 664 S.W .2d at 358. As in Haliburton and McG owan , w e wi ll not presume a

ppellant was ha

rmed. We overrule appellant’ s point of error and af firm the judg ment of convic tion.5 __________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 13, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh