NO. 07-08 -018 6-CR NO. 07-08 -018 7-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 C APR IL 2, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ JOL EA A NN C OR NE LIU S, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 25 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ER COU NT Y; ST NOS. 56 ,38 2-C & 56,3 83-C; HON. ANA EST EVE Z, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

___ ME MO RA ND UM

OPI NI ON

_________

_________

_________

___ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. J o lea An n Cornelius was convi cted of posse ssing a controlled substa nce (met ham phe tam ine) and being a felon in possessi o n o f a f irearm. Af

ter the trial court d e n ie d h e r m o t io n t o su p p re s s , sh e p le d gu il t y t o b o t h o f fe n s e s a n d wa s se n t e n c e d b y a jur y after a pu nis hment he ar ing to tw enty y ears confine ment for the for mer off ense and t en y ears conf inem ent for the latte r. Her three issues on app eal involv e w het her the trial court 1) er re d in deny ing her motion to s uppress , 2) abus ed i ts dis creti on i n admi tti ng , dur ing the2

puni shmentphas e of

the tr ial , ev ide nce of other bad act s w hen t he St ate h ad notafforded appel lan t not ic e of it s i ntentto proff er thatev ide nce, and 3) i n omi tti ng a reason abl e doubt ins tr uct ion from t he c harg e w hen ask ing the jur y to ass ess puni shmentfor t he offense of poss ess ing a c ontroll ed s ubst ance. W e aff ir m the jud g ments. Back gr ound On Au gust 18, 20 07, De put y G abe Na rramo re o f

t he Pot ter Coun ty She riff ’s Of f ice
w as trav eli ng behi nd a v ehi cl e dr iv en by appel lan t. She came t o a s top a t an int ersec ti on
w her eat a flas hin g y ell ow l ig ht w as loc ated. After she proceed ed th ro ug h the i ntersec ti on, he i nit iat ed a traff icst op and dis cov er ed th at ap pel lan t had no d ri v er ’s l ic ense, had no proof of ins ur ance on th e v ehi cl e, an d had an outs tandi ng w ar ra nt. Upo n her ar re st, appel lan t tol d N ar ra more that the v ehi cl e w as not h ers a nd, t her efore, she did no t kn o w w hat w as in it

. W hen another deputy adv is ed appel lan t he w as g oin g to search the dr iv er ’s si de of the v ehi cl e, s he al leg edl y co nsent ed to it

. Appel lan t’ s o pen purse w as found on th e front seatof the c ar

and a pl ast icco ntai ner hol din g w hat an officer bel iev ed to be c ontraband
w as seen in it

. Upo n furt hers ear ch of the purse, the off ic er al so found a handg un i n a
z ipp er ed c ompartment. Issue 1 - M

otion to Sup press Appel lan t arg ues that the t ri al cour t s houl d hav e s uppress ed th e drug s a nd g un found in the v ehi cl e bec ause the t ra ff icst op w as not v ali d. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. As pr ev iou sl y

m enti oned, appel lan t w as the s ubj ectof an out sta ndi ng ar re st w ar ra nt at t he ti me of the s top. Thoug h the off ic ers d id not know thi s u nti l they deta ine d her , t he fact th at a w ar ra nt w a s o u ts ta n din g cl eanse d the st op and search of anytai nt t hat may hav e ar is en from the i nit ial dete nti on. Hud son v. State, 247 S.W .3d 780, 78 7 ( Tex . Ap p.–Appel l ant i s par t i cul ar l y conce r ned wi t h t wo conv er sat i ons i n whi ch she was hear d t o say t hat she 1 h a d m a d e a “d u d e ” $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 i n o n e w e e k

. 3 Amar il lo 2008, no pet .) ; Fletc her v. Sta te, 90 S. W .3d 4 19, 4 20 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2002, no pet .)

. In ot her

w ords, any

co nnect ion betw een t he di sc ov er y of the c ontraband a nd th e all eg edl y i ll eg al sto p w as b ro ke n , a n d the tr ial co urt di d noter r in deny ing the moti on to suppress . Iss ue 2 - Adm is si

on of Ot her Of fens es and Ba d Ac ts Next, appel lan t c omplai ns of t h e a d m ission int o ev ide nce dur ing the puni shment pha se of ex cerpts ta ken f rom te leph one conversations to which a ppe llant w as a party w hile in jail. The ev iden ce pu rported ly w as inad missible beca use th e Sta te ne glected to notice her of its intent to use tho se con v ersatio ns at trial. 1 Ev ide nce of an e xtraneous cr ime or bad acti s a dmis si ble dur ing the puni shment phase of the t ri al i f the court deems it rel ev ant and it is show n bey ond a re asona ble doubt to hav e been commi tted by the defendant. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 37.07 §3( a) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. Fur thermor e, up on a ti mely req uestby

the defendant, the S tate
mu s t n o t i fy h i m o f i t s i n t e n t t o i n t ro d u c e s u c h e v i d e n c e. Id. §3( g ). Ag ain , t o tr ig g er the Stat e’s obl ig ati on, a defendant m u st s e rve the S tate w it h a req uestfor n oti ce or fil e a moti on req uest ing the cour t to order notic e and obtai n a rul ing on t hat mot ion

. Hen der son
v. State, 29 S. W .3d 6 16, 6 25 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 Dist .] 2 0 0 0 , pet . ref’d)

. Here, no st
suc h not ic e or

moti on appe ars o f

r e co rd

. And, thou g h appel lan t s ay s o ne w as filed or ser v ed, s he does not ci te t o the record i n effort t o s how sh e preser

v ed th e c omplai nt. Fi nal ly , app ell ant’ s mot ion s i n l imi ne di d notfil l the v oid sin ce she di d notreq uestpr ior4

noti ficat ion throug h it. Nor did the tri al cour

t rul e on thos e motions

. So, w e c annot say that the S tate’ s d uty

to noti fy w as ev er

tr ig g er ed. Iss ue 3 - Lack

of Rea sonab le Dou bt Inst ru cti on Fi nal ly , app ell ant c lai ms har mf ul er ro r on th e par t of the tr ial courtin fail ing to sua sponte ins tr uctthe jurors o n anot her matte r re g ardin g the jur y ’s co nsi derati on of
e xtra n e o u s b a d ac ts . T h e in st ru ct io n om it te d w a s t h a t d ire ct in g th e ju ry to fo re go cons ide ri ng su ch act s u nle ss it found, bey ond reas onabl e doubt, t hat a ppel lan t c ommitt ed them. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. W hil e the f ail ur e to so ins tr uctthe jur y co nst it utes er ro r, Hui

zar v. Sta te, 12 S. W .3d 479, 484 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) , Al len v. Sta te, 47 S. W .3d 4 7, 50 ( Tex

. App.–F ort W orth 2001, pet. r ef’d) , w e find that the e rror di d notresul t i n eg re g iou s h ar m. See Alm anza v. State, 686 S.W .2d 1 57, 1 71 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984) ( sta ti ng thatharm mustbe e g re g iou s
w hen t he defendant did not obj ectto the o mitt ing i nst ru cti on) ; Nea l v. State, 256 S. W .3d 264, 278 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2008) (st ati ng that harm is eg re g iou s if itdepr iv es a defendant of a fair and im partia l trial) . Th is is so for se v eral reaso ns. First, ap pellan t did no t request the i nst ru cti on or

obj ectto it s o mis si on. Seco nd, t houg h the i nst ru ct ion w as omit ted from the charg e i nv olv ing the possessi on o f na r c ot i c s , i t w as i nc l ud ed i n th ati nv ol v i ng t he p os s es s i on o f a fi r ea r m. Mo re ov er , t he offenses w er e tr ied tog ether

. So, itw as act ual ly before the j ur

y w hen i t w as ass ess ing puni shment on both cr imes

. Mo re ov er , w e mustpresume that itco nsi der ed th e ins tr uct ion

. Adam s v

. St ate, 179 S .W .3 d 1 61, 1 65 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2005, no pet .) (h old ing thatthe cour

ts pr esume jurors a bid e by the ins tr uct ion s g iv en th em).5

Seco nd, app ellantpled guilty to the charged o f

f ense s, one of

w hich imp licitly inc lud ed referenc e to a pr ior felony co nv ic ti on. So, the j urors l egiti m a te ly k new thatsh e had a cr imi nal record. W e al so note that appel lan t doe s not s ug g estthatany factual dis pute sur ro unded h er tw o pr ior sta te jai l felony conv ic ti ons and t hr ee pr ior mis demeanor
conv ic ti ons about w hic h the jur y w as tol d. Know ing that infor mati on alo ne w oul d w ar ra nt the s entenc e l ev ied

. Third, w hil e i t i s t ru e tha t t he St ate refer re d to the t ele phone c onv ersat ion s i n i ts closing in ef

fort to po rtray

app e lla nt as a d rug dealer, evidence of record non eth eless ind ic ated that she poss ess ed a sal eabl e amountof methampheta mine and s cal es. F ro m tha t, a ration al juror co uld reaso nab ly ded uce th at she w as involv ed in th e sale of drugs. Si mply put and upo n re viewing the total it y of the record, w e c annot say that appel lan t w as deni ed a fair and impar

ti al tr ial

. Thus, the error did not gi v e ri se to eg re g iou s har m. Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ments of the tr ial co urt are aff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice

Do not p ubl is h.