NO. 07-06 -040 6-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER10, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ DAVID RUBEN SALA ZAR, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; TH NO . 51, 769- A; H ON ORABLE HA L M IN ER , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t D av id Rub en Sal az ar appeal s h is co nv ic ti on for the off ense of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d and t he j ur y -a ss ess ed puni shmentof ten y ears c onfinement in the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of

the Tex as Depa rt ment of C ri minal Ju sti ce. Ag re ein g w it h appoi nted coun sel’s conclusio n the record fails to show any me ritorious issue which w ould supp ort the a ppeal , w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment. The compl ain ant w as appel lan t’ s s tepdaug hter A.M . In M ay

2005, w hen A. M. w as fourteen y ears o ld, A.M . t old h e r a u n t t hat a ppel lan t had se x ual ly touc hed her

and hadSee Tex . Pe n. C ode An n. § 22.021 (V er non 200 7)
. 1 Allen v. Unite d Sta tes, 164 U.S. 492 (1896 ). 2 2 sex u a l i n t e r c o u rs e w i t h h e r fro m t h e t i me s h e w a s e i g h t o r n i n e y e a rs o l d u nti l she w as ele v en or

tw elv e. After a re por

t to pol ic e, A.M
. w as ex amined by a sex ual ass aul t nurse. By a Nov ember 2005 ind ic tment, appel lan t w as charg ed w it h ag g ra v ated se x ual assau lt of a child und er the age of fourte en y ears. At the close of pret ri a l m o tions, 1 appel lan t pl ed notg uil ty and the mat ter

proceed ed to tr ial i n Sept ember 2006. At trial, the ju ry

h eard t estim ony f rom four Sta te w itnesse s, includin g the v ictim, A. M. The defense present ed th re e w it ness es. D ur ing j ur y del ibe ra ti ons, the jur

y repor ted i t w as unabl e to re ach a v erdict. F oll ow ing an “Al len ch arg e” from t he c our t, the j ur y retur ned a 2 u n a n im o u s ve rd ic to f

gu il t y. App ellant 's appo inted coun sel has f iled a motion to w ithdra w and a brief

in suppo rt pursuantto And ers v. California , 386 U .S. 738, 744- 745, 87 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (196 7), in w hich he cert if ie s t hathe ha s caref ully rev iew ed th e record an d, in his professi onal opi nio n, un der the cont ro lli n g a u thor it ies and facts of this ca se, there i s n o re v ersi ble er ro r or leg it imat e g ro unds upon w hic h a n on- friv olo us appeal ca n arg uabl y be pr edi cat ed. The br ief di sc uss es the p ro cedural his tor y of the c ase and s ets forth a de tai led re ci tati on of the ev ide nce produce d at tr ial . Couns el has cer ti fied th at a copy

of the mot ion to w ithdra w

has be en se rv ed o n ap pellan t and h e has informe d ap pellan t of his ri ght to f ile a p e t it io n fo r di s c re t io n a ry re vie w a s re qu ir e d b y Ex Parte Owe ns, 206 S.W .3d 6 70 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)
. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 48. 4. Ap p e ll ant h as ack now led g ed not ic e by3

couns el of hi s ri g ht to re v iew the re cord and fil e a pro se respon se. Johns on v . St ate , 885 S.W .2d 6 41, 6 45 ( Tex .App. -- W aco 1994, pet. re f' d ). By letter , t his C our t al so noti fied appel lan t of h is o p p o rt u nity to submi t a re spons e to the And ers br ief and moti on to w it hdraw fil ed byhis couns el. The Stat e has not f il ed a bri ef. Appel lan t has fil ed a pro se respo nse raising three issue s. In con formity w ith the stan dard s set out by the United Sta tes Suprem e Court, we w ill not r ule on t he moti on to w it hdraw unti l w e hav e i ndepend entl y ex amined the re cord. Nichol s v . St ate , 954 S.W .2d 83, 86 (Tex.App .--San An ton io 199 7, no pet. ). If th is Court deter mines the appeal has mer it , w e w il l re mand i t to the tr ial cour t for appoi ntment of new couns el. Staf

for d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 511 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p.1 991 ). Appel lan t’ s resp o nse firs t c hal len g es the l eg al and factu al suffici ency of the ev ide nce to s uppor

t hi s co n viction . The i ndi ctmentch arg ed th at ap pel lan t, on or about June 1, 200 3, inten tiona lly a nd kn owi ngly

cause d his sexual organ to pen etrat e the fem ale sex ual org an of [A. M. ], a c hil d w ho w as then and t here y oung er than 14 y ears o f age
. A l eg al suffici ency

rev iew dete rm in es w hether , after rev iew of the e v ide nce in the li g ht mos t fav orabl e to the S tate, any tr ier of fact c oul d hav e found the essent ial el ements of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. Jacks on v . Vi rgini a, 443 U.S. 307 , 318 -19 (197 9); Fowler v. Sta te, 65 S.W .3d 116 , 118 (Tex.App .–A ma rill o 20 01, no pe t.). All the evidence is rev iew ed, b ut ev ide nce that does not s uppor t t he v erdic t i s d is re g arded. See, e.g., Cha m ber

s v . St ate , 805 S.W .2d 459 , 461 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91). T h e j u ry’ s v erdict is uphel d unl ess i t i s i rrati onal or uns uppor

ted b y more tha n a mere m o d icu m o f ev ide nce.4

Fow ler, 65 S.W .3d at 118 ( citi ng Mor eno v . St ate, 755 S.W .2d 8 66, 8 67 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 198 8)). Ev ide nce suppo rt ing g uil t, thoug h l eg all y su f f ici e n t, maybe fact ual ly i nsuffici ent becau se it is so w eak that the jur y ’s v erdic t seems cl ear ly w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust , or becau se ev ide nce cont ra ry to the v erdict is su ch that the j ur y ’s v erdic t i s a g ain st the g re at wei g ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Ma rs hal l v. State , 210 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 25 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ; W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404 , 414 -15 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06); Johns on v

. St ate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 11 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. W hen t here i s a co nflic t i n the evidence, to f ind th e evidence factu a ll y i n s u f f icient, a n ap pellat e cou rt mustf irst be able to say , w ith som e obje ctiv e basis i n the record, that th e great w eight and prepo nde rance of all the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j ur y ’s v erdic t. W

ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 417
. The Stat e’s four w it ness es w ere the Amar il lo pol ic e off ic er w ho to ok A.M .’ s i nit ial compl ain t, A.M ., A.M .’ s a unt a nd the s ex ual as saul t nurse ex aminer
. A.M . w as si xteen at the time o f

trial. H er testim ony abou t app ellant ’s sex ual contact w ith he r w as no t espe cially det a il e d , but did include direct state me nts th at on v arious occa sions, a ppe llant pu t his peni s i n her

v ag ina
. The nurse ex aminer tes ti fied re g ardin g her ex aminat ion of A.M . and the re por t s he created re g ardin g A.M
. The r epor t, w hic h w as admit ted w it hout obj ect ion , al so re ci ted A.M .’ s s tatementthatappel la n t “raped” her w hen s he w as y oung er , prov idi ng addi ti onal d e t a il s . T h e n u rs e t e s t if ie d t h a ta ll o f h e r f in d in gs we re co n s is t e n twit h A
. M. ’s h is t o ry, cons is tent w it h w hat A .M . t old her , and co nsi ste nt w it h mul ti ple penet ra ti ons of A.M
.Te x . Pen . Code Ann. § 12.3 2 (Verno n 19 94). 3 5 Appel lan t’ s tr ial counsel of fered t he te sti mony

of A.M .’ s s tepmothe r, A.M .’ s mot her and A.M.’s g rand mo the r. Each of these w it n e s ses expressed d isbelief of A.M.’s all eg ati ons. W hil e s ome as ser ted t hat a ppel lan t l ack e d the oppor tuni ty to commi t t he off enses A.M . al leg ed, n one present ed di re ct ev ide nce cont ra ry to the v erdict. The j ur y i s t he ex cl usi v e j udg e of t h e c re dib il ity

of w it ness es and of the w eig ht t o be g iv en t h e ir testi mony . W yatt v . St ate, S.W .3d 18, 30 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 0) ( citi ng Bar nes v. State, 876 S.W .2d 316, 321 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1994) ). Li kew is e, “ re conc il iat ion of conf licts in the evidence is w ithin th e exclusiv e province of the jury.” Id. (citing Losa da v. State, 7 21 S.W .2 d 30 5, 309 (Te x .C r i m. Ap p. 198 6) )
. Th e j ur y ma y c ho os e to b el i ev e s om e tes ti mony and dis bel iev e oth er tes ti mony . Id. The ju ry ’s apparent b eli ef of the tes ti mony of t he Stat e’s w it ness es does not ra is e an arg uabl y meri tor iou s is sue conc er nin g the leg al and factu al suffici ency

of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing the jur y ’s v erdic t. Neithe r does th e record raise an arguably me ritorious issue wi th regard to th e jury ’s ass ess ment of puni shment
. Pursuantto the P enal C ode, an i ndi v idu al adj udg ed gui lty of 3 a first deg re e felony , as here, is to be puni shed by impr is onment for li fe or for any ter m of not more tha n 99 y ears o r less than fiv e y ears. Fur ther , a fine may

be i mposed in an amount n ot g re ater

than $10, 000. The j ur

y as ses sed puni shmentag ain st appel lan t atten y ears, w ell w it hin the sta tutor y rang e. In ap pellan t’s secon d po int, he alleges prosecu torial misco ndu ct during the St ate ’s v oir di re of the jur

y and the State’ s cl osi ng arg ument. The record reflect s, how ev er , t hat6

appel lan t di d notobj ectat tr ial to the p ro sec utor 's v oir di re st atements or

thos e made during closing argum ent
. B ecau se a com plaintt o the trial court w as a prerequisite to such a c omplai nt on appeal , app ell ant’ s s econd poi nt c annot p re se n t an arg uabl e g ro und for appeal
. See Jenk

ins v. Sta te, 870 S.W .2d 626, 629 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1994, st pet. re f’d) ( hav ing fail ed to obj ect to the prosec utor 's sta tement dur ing v oir di re , app ell ant has preser

v ed not hin g for rev iew ); Cockre ll v. State, 933 S.W .2d 7 3, 89 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) ; Tex . R . Ap p. P . 33. 1. L a s t l y , a p p e l l a n t a rg u e s t hat t he Al len ch arg e g iv en th e j ur y co er ced them i nto re achi ng a g uil ty v erdict. For tw o re asons , the compl ain t is not arg uabl y mer it or iou s. F irst, in both civ il and cr imi nal ca ses , c our ts hav e found s imi lar

ch arg es not t o be coerci v e. Stev ens v. Tr aveler s Ins. C o., 5 6 3 S
. W
. 2 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 5 ( Te x . 1 9 7 8 ) ; Fr eem an v . St ate, 115 S.W .3d 183 , 186 (Tex.App .–T exarkana 20 03, pet. ref ’d ); Golden v. Fir st Nat’ l Bank, 751 S. W .2 d 639, 641 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 1988, no w ri t)
. Seco nd, b ecaus e no obj ect ion w as ma de to the trial court’s Al len ch arg e, ap pel lan t w oul d be re q uired to sh ow thati t c aused him act ual “ eg regio us har m,” effect iv ely deny ing hi m a fair

tr ial
. Patr

ick v . St ate, 906 S.W .2d 4 81 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1995) ; A l m a n za v

. S tate, 6 8 6 S .W .2d 1 57, 1 71 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1985, op. o n reh’ g ). S e e a l s o B r o wn v. Sta te, 1990 W L 51036 , * 3 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1990, no w ri t) ( not d esi g nated f o r publ ic ati on) ( sta ti ng that st becau se appel lan t fail ed to objectto the Al len ch a rge , he ca n n o t p re vail un le ss th e ch a rge w as er ro neous and caus ed eg re g iou s h ar m). Fro m our rev iew of the record, s uch a cont enti on w oul d notbe mer it or iou s.7

Bot h the United St ate s Supre me Court and the T exas Court of Cri min al App eals have accep ted the use o f a supp lem ent al Al

len charg e. Allen v. Unite d Sta tes, 164 U. S. 492 ( 1986) ; Howar

d v . St ate, 941 S.W .2d 102, 123 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
. Here, the t ri al cour t g av e a v ersi on of the Al len ch arg e to the j ur

y, a d d re ssing the jur

y as a w hol e and en c o u ra g i n g t h e m t o re a c h a v e rd i c ti f t h e y c a n d o s o w i t h o u tv i o l a t i n g t h e i r c o n s c ien ce. Stanton v

. St ate, 535 S.W .2d 1 82, 183 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1976) ( an i nst ru cti on th at a mis tr ial w ould have to be decla red i s not , of itself , coercive). See Jones v. Sta te, 986 S. W .2d 3 58, 362 ( Tex .Ap p .– Beaumont 1999, pet. re f’d) ( tr ial co urt may proper ly enc ourag e j urors t o reach an acce pta ble verdict). Our rev iew conv inc es us that appel lat e couns el condu cte d a compl ete anal y si s o f the record. W e hav e al so made an ind ependentex aminat ion of the record to deter mine w hether there are any

non- frivol o us g ro unds on w hic h an appeal co uld arg uabl y be founded. Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U. S. 7 5 ( 1988) ; Sta fford , 813 S .W .2d a t 511 . W e agree it pr esent s n o mer it or iou s i ss ue w hic h w oul d s uppor t an appeal
. Ac cordin g ly , w e g ra nt couns el' s mot ion to w it hdraw and w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.