C ar t er was r e- i ndi ct ed o n Apr i l 26, 2007. I ncl uded i n t he n ew i ndi ct m ent was a par agr aph det ai l i ng 1 C ar t er ’ s t wo pr ev i ous f el ony convi ct i ons f or ro bber y on Jul y 14, 2000, and unl awf ul posse ssi on o fcocai ne o n M ay 2, 200 3. T he i ndi ct m ent not ed t hat t he conv i ct i on f or unl awf ul possessi on ofcocai ne t r anspi r ed a f t er t he ro b b e ry c o n v i c ti o n b e c a m e fi n a l

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 12

. 42 ( d) ( Ver no n Sup p. 200 8) ( “ [ I ] fi t i s sh ow n on t he t r i al of

a f el ony off ense
. . . t hat t he d ef endan t has pr ev i ousl y b ee n fi na l l y convi ct ed o ft wo f el ony of f enses, and t he se cond pr ev i ous f el ony conv i ct i on i s f or an of f ense tha t occur r ed su bseque nt t o t he f i r st pr ev i ous co nv i ct i on h av i ng b ecom e f i nal , on conv i ct i on h e sha l l be puni shed by i m pr i sonm ent

. . . f or l i f e, or 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0010 7-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
M EL VIN CA RT ER, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 19t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Me lv in C arter , w as charg ed by i ndi ctmentw it h unl awful pos ses si on of le s s t h a n 2 0 0 g ra m s b u tm o re t h a n f o u r gr a m s o f c o c a in e , a se c o n d -d e gr e e fe lo n y. See 1fo r a n y te rm o f n o t m o re th a n 9 9 y e a rs o r l e s s th a n 2 5 y e a rs .”). 2 T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN
. § 481. 115( a) , ( d) ( Ver non 200 3) ; id. § 48 1.1 02(3 )(D) (Verno n Sup p. 20 08) (listing cocain e in the “Pena lty Group 1 “). A Nuece s Count y jury foun d Carter guilty of the of f ense
. Af

ter plea ding “true” to the enh ance me nt pa ragraph in the i ndi ctment , t he j ur y se ntenc ed C arter

to thi rt y

y ears’ co nfinement in the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce- Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion w it h no fine. By two i ssues, C arter
co n te n d s t h a t: (1) t h e tri a l co u rterr e d in fa ili n g to in clu d e an in st ru ct io n in th e ju ry cha rge per tai nin g to ev ide nce obtai ned i n v iol ati on of ar ti cle 38.23 of the code of cr imi nal pr ocedu re , see T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.23 (V er non 200 5); a n d ( 2 ) the prose cuto r engaged in misco ndu ct by ref eren cing an inadm issible extraneo us of f ense in hi s o pe ni ng s ta te me ntd ur i ng t he p un i s hm en t ph as e of t he t r i al

. W e affi r m. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On t he ev eni ng of Oct ober 26, 2006, Cor pus Chr is ti Poli ce Depa rt ment Off ic ers M att Ha rm on a nd Ke v in Felt w ere sea rching Leop ard Stree t in Corpus Christi, Te x as, for a possib le w itness in a mu rder case. As the y w ere patrolling Leo pard Stree t, the of f icers dis cov er ed a si lv er

F or d F -1 50 pi ck up tr uck bac ked in betw een tw o bui ldi ng s a t t he Econ omyM otel. Off ic er F elttes ti fied th at t he par ki ng sp ot w as sus pic iou s b ecaus e tha t
w as w her e the motel ke pt i ts tr ash cans , mops , and othe r thi ng s u sed for c lea nin g the mote l. Tw o females , w hom the off ic ers b eli ev ed to be p ro sti tutes , w er e s peaki ng to the p a s s e n ge rs o f

t h e t ru c kwh e n t h e o f

f ic e rs a rr ive d

. T h e o f

f ic e rs , wa n t in g t o sp e a kt o t h e two f em ales an d the passe ngers of the truck ab out the whereab out s of the w itness, pulled their police cruiser in f ront of the silv er truck. Carter, the d riv er of the truck, atte mp ted to quickly flee th e scene upon s eei ng the pol ic e c ru is er , butthe pol ic e c ru is er bl ock ed hi s e sc ape.T exas Depar t m ent of Publ i c Saf et y l ab tes t s l at er pr ov ed t hat t he whi t e sub st ance was, i ndeed , 2 cocai ne. O f f i cer H ar m on t est i f i ed t hat t he cocai ne r et r i ev ed f r om t he f ol ded pant s am ount ed t o ab out 5. 71 g ra m s
. 3 Carter the n stop ped the truck. The pol ic e off ic ers, now suspec ti ng that the passeng ers of the tr uck w er e s oli ci ti ng pr ost it utes , ex it ed th e pol ic e c ru is er and attempt ed to co ntac t the truc k pass eng ers. As the police o f f icers appro ache d the truck, the y obse rv ed Carte r place a w hite su bsta nce in his mouth. B a sed on hi s e x per ien ce and t ra ini ng , O ff ic er H ar mon bel iev ed th e w hit e subst ance t o be co caine . Of f icer Harmon imm edia tely instructe d Carter to ta ke the object out o f his mouth. C arter co mpli ed and pla ced the o bje ct ins ide a pa ir a folded pants that
w er e on the s eat b esi de hi m. Beli ev ing that C arter w as in poss ess ion of coc ain e, O ff ic er Har mon pla ced Car

ter under ar re st and re tr iev ed the w hit e subs tanc e from th e folded pants on t he c ar

se at. O nce Car

ter w as pla ced under

ar re st, he b ecame irate a nd beg an 2
a rgu in g w it h th e ot h e r pa ss e n ger of th e tru ck , E zek ie l Ro ger s, al le gin g th a t t h e dru gs bel ong ed to R og ers. C arter l ater ca lmed dow n and admit ted t o the pol ic e off ic ers that the cocain e w as his. Of

f icer Harmon also search ed Carter’s w allet an d foun d ap proximate ly 1.01 g ra ms of pow der

co cai ne i nsi de th e w all et. Car ter w as charg ed by

i ndi ctmentw it h unl awful pos ses si on of cocai ne on Apr il 26, 2007. See T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN
. § 481. 115( a) , ( d) ; id. § 481.102 (3 )( D). O n June 6, 20 07, C arter

fil ed a moti on to su ppr ess the coc ain e s eiz ed by the off ic ers, all eg ing that the d e t e n t i o n a n d s e i z u r e o f t h e c o c a i n e w e r e u n l a wfu l a n d i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e v e ra l Uni ted S tates and Tex as Con sti tuti on pr ov is ion s and arti cl e 38.23 of t he code of cr imi nal pr ocedu re
. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.23. Car ter ’s moti on to su ppr ess w as deni ed by

the tr ial co urt.4

Tri al commenc ed on Janua ry 22, 2008. After the Stat e r est ed i ts cas e, t he foll ow ing col loq uy oc cur re d: THE C OU RT: Oka y . Ar e y ou g oin g to put o n— [C arter ’s couns el] : Ma y I confer w it h my cl ien t br iefly ? I’ m th in kin g that

w e’re not g oing to have any w itnesse s. T HE CO UR T : O k a y. [ C a rt e r ’ s c o u n s e l ] : I f t h a t ’ s t h e c a s e , w e m a y n e e d t o c h a n g e t h e ch ar g e. If I can ha v e a f ew min ute s. T HE COURT : Sure. And t hen a s so on as y ou know, w ould y ou let Mr.

Skur ka [Sta te’ s c ounse l] kn ow and y ou c an g et t he charg e. (Recess) T HE COURT: Okay. T he Sta te has rested

. I und erstan d the def ense

is n o tgo in g t o p u to n a n y t e s t im o n y. [C arter ’s co unsel ]: That’s co rrect , Y our H onor
. W e w oul d r est

. THE C OU RT: Oka y . On ce th e jur y comes in, I’ ll let y ou all re st and cl ose on th e r ecord. And anyobject ion s to th e c harg e? [Sta te’ s couns el] : Th e S ta te h a s n o obj ect ion s t o the C our t’ s pr opose d charg e. [Carter’s coun sel]: W e ha v e no object ion eith er. The jur y s u b s e q u e n t l y

c o n v i c t e d C a rt e r

o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g o ffe n s e a n d s e n t e n c e d h i m to thi rt y y ears’ co nfinement. On F ebr uar

y 21, 2008, the tr ial courtcert ified Carter ’s rig ht to appeal. This appeal follo w ed. II. J U R Y C H A R GE E RROR By hi s f irst is sue, Carter

co ntends thathe w as deni ed a fair and impar

ti al jur y tr ial5

becau se the tr ial co urt fail ed to i nst ru ct the j ur y , pursuantto arti cl e 38. 23 of the code of
cr imi nal procedu re , abo ut t he l awfulness of the d etent ion and sei z ur e of the coc ain e. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38 .23 . Th e Sta te argues th at Cart e r h a s inade quately brief ed th is issue a nd tha t he failed to dem onst rate a co nte sted factu al issue en titling him to an ar ti cl e 38. 23 j ur

y i nst ru cti on. See i

d. 1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iew T exas Code of

Crimin al Proced ure article 38 .23 provi des, in relev ant part, th at, in any case in w hich th e evidence raises a fact issue re ga rd in g wh e t her it w as ob taine d in
v iolation of

any prov isions of

the United Sta tes Con stitutio n or law s of the St ate of

Te x as, “the jury shall be instructed that if it be liev es, or ha s a rea sona ble dou bt, tha t the ev iden ce
w as ob taine d in v iolation of the pro v isions of this Article, the n
. . . the jury shall disregard any su ch ev ide nce so obtai ned." Id. art. 38 .23 (a); se e Pick ens v. State , 165 S.W .3d 6 75, 680 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) (h old ing that it is not neces sar y for a defendant t o r eq uestan ins tr uct ion under

arti cl e 38.23 to pr eser

v e er ro r) ; see als o Bolds v. State , N o. 14 -0 7- 00952- CR , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 9 585, at * 6 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] D ec. 23, 2008, no pet .) (mem . op. , not designate d for pub lication). T h e c o u rt o f criminal app eals recen tly held that “[a] def end ant mu st esta blish three foun dat ion requireme nts to trig ger an [a]rticle 38.23 ins tr uct ion : (1 ) the e v ide nce hear d by t h e j u ry mustr ais e an is sue of f act ; ( 2) the
ev ide nce on that fact must be aff ir mati v ely cont est ed; and ( 3) the cont est ed factua l is sue
mu st be m ate rial to t h e l awfuln ess of the cha llenged con duct . . . .” Our sbour n v . St ate , 259 S. W .3d 1 59, 1 77 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ; see Ma dden v . St ate , 242 S.W .3d 5 04, 5 10 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. "A fact is sue about w hether ev ide nce w as leg all y obtai ned may be r ais ed ' from any6

sour ce, and the e v id e n ce m ay be s trong , w eak, co ntr adi cte d, un impeac hed, or unbel iev abl e.' " Gar

za v . St ate , 126 S.W .3d 7 9, 85 ( Tex. Crim

. Ap p . 200 4) ( q uoti ng W il ker son v. State , 933 S.W .2d 276 , 280 (Te x. A p p
. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 96)). Nevertheless, a co urt m u s t in clude an article 38 .23 instruction in the jury charge only i f ther e i s a factual di sput e abouthow the ev ide nce w as obtai ned. Id. 2. Disc ussi on Car ter di d nottesti fy at tr ial and off er ed no w it ness es in his def ense. Throug h the
cross -e x aminat ion of Off ic ers H ar mon and Fel t, Car ter s u g g est ed th at t he pol ic e di d not hav e r eason abl e s uspi ci on to deta in him and t hat t he r eason he a ttempt ed to flee t he
scene w as be cause he be liev ed th e po lice of f icers to be carjacke rs. Ca rter, howev er, el ic it e d no ev iden ce imp each ing the testim ony of eithe r Off icer Harmon or Of f icer Felt about thei r obser

v ati ons re g ar din g C arter ’s pos ses si on of the c ocai ne and Car ter ’s att empt to s w all ow

the coc ain e. Carter’s coun sel asked a few question s a bou t Of f icer Harm on’s and Of

f icer Felt’s ability to ob serv e his atte mp t to sw allow the cocain e and his place me nt of the cocaine in the f old ed p a n t s o n t h e s e a t

. O ffi c e r H a r mo n a n d O ffi c e r

F e l tb o t h c o n s i s t e n t l y

t e s t i fi ed that: ( 1) they

w er e abl e to obser

v e C arter

pl ace a w hit e subs tanc e in his mouth; ( 2) upon commandi ng C arter

to tak e the w hit e subst ance out of his m outh, Carter placed the w hit e subs tanc e i n the folded pants on t he ca r se a t; and ( 3) bas ed on thei r tr ain ing and
ex per ien ce, the w hit e s ubst ance w as coc ain e, a cont ro ll ed subst ance. Fur ther more, both Off ic er H ar mon and Off ic er Fel t t est ified thatthey obs er v ed C arter

par ked in a s uspi ci ous pla ce— betw een tw o bui ldi ng s w her e trash, mops, and other m otel items w er e us ual ly ke pt; that Car ter and Rog ers a ppear ed to be s o lic it ing tw o female p ro sti tutes ; and thatC arter7

imm edia tely tried to f lee the scene upo n obse rv ing the police cruiser. Becau se Carter did not e li ci t any

ev ide nce ra is ing a factq uest ion about the l awfulness of the d etent ion and the sei z u re o f

t h e c o ca ine , w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt di d noter r in faili ng to inc lud e an
arti cl e 38.23 inst ru cti on in t he j ur y ch ar g e. See Oursbou rn , 259 S.W .3d a t 177 ( noti ng that a “factu al dispu te can be raised on ly byaf f irmative ev iden ce, no t by me re crosse xam in a ti o n que st io n s o r ar gum e n t” ) (ci ti n g Ma dden , 2 42 S. W .3d at 513 nn.2 2-23 ). Acc or din g ly , C arter ’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. III
. P ROSECUTORI A L M I S CONDU CT In hi s s econd i ss ue, C arter as ser ts thatthe pr osec utor

eng ag ed i n mi sc onduc t by maki ng se v er al re ferenc es to an uns ubst anti ated ex tr aneou s off ense in his openi ng
s t a t e me nt du ring the pun ishm ent pha se of the trial w hich con stitute d imp ermissible “c har act er

conformit y ” ev ide nce that w as “s o clear ly calc ula ted to inflame the mind of the jur y thatan i nst ru cti on to di sr eg ar d w oul d nothav e c ur ed the harm.” Spec ific all y , C arter compl ain s a bout the p ro sec utor ’s re ferenc e to a c ase of ret ali ati on fil ed ag ain st Car ter by Cor pus Chr is ti Pol ic e D epar tment Off ic er

Eddi e Al v ar ado. The St ate c ounters b y as ser ti ng that Car ter has not pr eser

v ed this iss ue for appel lat e r ev iew bec ause no obj ect ion w as made to the t ri al cour

t. In orde r to preserve error in cases of p rosecu torial misco ndu ct, the d ef end ant must (1) make a time ly and specif ic obje ction, (2) request an instruction that the jury disregard the mat ter

i mprop er ly

pl aced before it , and (3) m ov e f or a mis tr ial

. Coc kr

ell v. Sta te , 933 S.W .2d 7 3, 89 ( Tex

. Cr im. App. 1996)

. Here, Car ter ’s tr ial couns el faile d to obj ect to t he pr osec utor ’s r eferenc es to t he r etal iat io n ca se inv olv ing C arter and Off ic er

Al v ar ado. B e c a u s e Ca rt e r d id n o tm a k e a t im e ly o bje c t io n t o t h e p r o s e c u t o r’ s st a t e m e n t s , we8

co n clu d e tha t not hin g has been pr eser v ed for re v iew

. See i

d. ; see als o T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33. 1(a )( 1 ); C ook v. State , 858 S.W .2d 4 67, 4 73 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1993) ( hol din g thata def end ant must make an objection , request an instruction to disregard , a n d m o v e for a mis tr ial i n order

to pr eser

v e jur y arg ument error

f or appel lat e r ev iew ); Car

ter v. Sta te , N o. 13- 07- 567- CR , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 8 967, at * *24- 28 ( Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti N ov . 20, 200 8, no pet. ) ( me m. op., not de signated for p ublicat ion) (same ). Accordingly , w e overrule Car ter ’s se cond is sue. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led both of Car ter ’s i ss ues on appeal, w e af firm the judg ment of

the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 12t h day

of Ma rc h, 20 09.