AFFIRM; Opinion Filed November 14, 2012.

In The 

### Qrnairt uf i\ppeih 

### *tftI! Iitrict øf 

### x d No. 05-11-00817-CR
TOMMY El)WARDS III, Appellant
‘j. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court 1)allas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F08-59764-N 

### OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Fillmore, and Myers Opinion By Justice Myers Appellant Tommy Edwards III appeals from an adjudication ofguilt. In only one issue, he argues the trial court erred by admitting State’s exhibit number four, which contained audio recordings of five telephone calls that appellant made from thejail. We affirm. BAcKGRouND AND PRocEDuRAl. HISTORY Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon pursuant to a written plea agreement. He also signed a judicial confession. On June 8, 2009, the trial court deferred adjudication and, pursuant to the plea agreement, placed appellant on deferred adjudication probation for eight years and imposed a S2500 fine. On March 1, 201 0, the State filed a motion to revoke probation or proceed to an adjudicationofguilt. On June 11, 2010, appellantpleaded true to all ofthe allegations in the motion except “q,” which involved failing to stay away from the complainant. The trial court denied the motion to proceed with an adjudication ofguilt, imposing a term ofninety days injail. On September9, 2010. the court modified appellant’s probation to add two additional conditions: participation in a “Community Control Program/High Risk caseload” and a “Cognitive Behavioral Program.” On September 29,2010. the State filed a second motion to revoke probation or proceed to an adjudication ofguilt The State alleged that, on June 8, 2009, during the term ofhis supervision, appellantviolated condition“q” in thathe “failedto stayawayfrom [complainant] NatashaEdwards, having contact by telephone and internctlfacebook.” On June 17. 2011, appellant entered an open plea oftrue to the motion to revoke oradjudicate. Bythis point, appellant andthe complainant, who hadbeen married, were divorced. Appellant signed ajudicial confession statingthat he “committed these further violations” as alleged in the State’s motion to revoke or adjudicate: bbContact by telephone and internet/facebookbefore filing ofmotion on 9/28/2010.” Afterhearing the evidence, thecourt adjudicated appellant’s guilt, sentencedhim to twentyyears inprison, andimposeda $2500

fine. During the hearing on the State’s second motion to revoke or adjudicate, after appellant pleaded true to a violation ofa condition ofhis probation, the parties presented their evidence. Appellant’s sister, TomishaEdwards, 

### testifiedthat appellanthadexhibiteddisturbingbehavioreven before their father had killed their mother in a church parking lot in 2006. Tomisha recalled that appellant had “always” 

### threatened to kill her, theirbrother, theirmother, and theirmother’s mother since Tomisba 

### was twelve years old. Their mother was afraid of

### appellant, her son, saying he had 

### “turned into his father” and that she 

### could not 

### trust him. Appellant told Tomisha that he hated the complainant and 

### wanted to 

### kill her, 

### thathe 

### didnot understand why he marriedher, 

### andthat “he

### just

—2—hates eveiything about her.” He also told Tomisba that he understood why their father killed their mother. “and he said he 

### wasjust like his 

### dad.” Tomisha did not doubt appellant would 

### cany out his threat to kill the complainant, saying, “He will kill her. No doubt in my mind.” Other

### evidence presented atthe hearing showedthat on September 25,2010, appellant sent the complainant several threatening text messages. In one ofthose messages, appellant threatened to kill the complainant and another individual. Appellant also sent the complainant a photograph ofatattoo on his neckthat containedthe complainant’s name, Tasha. followedbythe letters “R.l.P.” Later that day, the complainant filed a police report based on the text messages. The complainant spoke to a Dallas Police Officer, Felicia Malone, about the threatening text messages, and Malone recalled thatthe complainant “was very shaky” and “was looking around like she was paranoid like somebodywas going tojump out and do something to her.” The text messages were admitted into evidence as State’s exhibits six through ten. The trial court also admitted State’s exhibit four, a CD containing audio recordings offive telephonecalls thatappellantmade fromthejail from October2010 toMarch2011, overappellant’s relevance objections. Three of those calls were made to appellant’s cousin;’ two were to the complainant When the State initially offered exhibit four defense counsel objectedthat itwas not relevant. Theprosecutortoldthe courttheevidencewas relevantbecausethe “calls also substantiate the allegations thathe’s accused of; and itgoes to character and considerations thatthis Courtneeds to take into consideration when it plans the punishment ofthis defendant” The trial court replied thatit“didn’t seetherelevance, to be honestwithyou. Hepledtrue.” The court admittedthe exhibit firrecord purposes, at the prosecutor’s request.

t Accotding to Tondtha, thetelephonenumber aotuallybelonged to appellant’s grandmother.

-3-Towards the end ofTomisha’s testimony. the State oftèred exhibit four forall purposes save forthe two telephonecalls thathad beenmade to the 

### complainant, which

### were notyet authenticated. Defense counsel again objected based on relevance, arguing that “[w]hatever calls are on this disk
are not relevant to this proceeding.” The trial court overruled the objection, explaining, biThey will be admissible, and the objection is overruled. And the Court will determine what weight is to be given based on the circumstances, ifany.” Later, during the complainant’s testimony, the State offered exhibit four in its entirety. Defense counsel lodged another relevance objection, which the court overruled. The telephone calls were played Ibr the trial court during the complainant’s testimony. In therecordedconversations, appellantcanbeheardthreateningto kill the complainant, hermother herchildren, andcomplaining about the representation provided byhis attorney and the State’s plea offer. Appellant testified at the June 17, 2011 hearing. Appellant admitted he had a tattoo on his neck that read “Tasha,” followed by the letters “R-I-P.” But he denied that the tattoo meant he wanted his ex-wife to “rest in peace,” and that it only referred to the end oftheir relationship. Appellant admitted that he had said he was going to kill the complainant, and that he swore on his mother’s grave he would kill her. Appellant testified, however, that he “was angry atthe tim&’ and “didn’tmean it.” He also acknowledgedthat he hadput the complainant’s clothes in the bathtub of her apartment and set them on fire. Appellant was on probation for that offense. DiscussioN Inhis onlyissue, appellantarguesthatthe jailtelephonecalls, recordedfromOctober of 2010 to March of201 1, were “irrelevant and prejudicial” to the adjudication proceeding “because they
were made after the date ofcontact alleged in the motion to adjudicate,” which was June 8, 2009. Appellant cites niles 401 and 403 ofthe Texas Rules ofEvidence. See TEx. it Evux 401,403.

-4-An appellate court reviews a trial courts ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Walters i. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Only if the court’s decision lies “outside the zone ofreasonable disagreement” will we conclude an abuse of discretion occurred. IcL Appellant pleaded true to one or more of the allegations in each of the two adjudication proceedings. A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision and adtudicate guilt. See Moore i. StUtL’, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] l9S0) Duncan i’. State’, 321 S.W.3d 53. 57 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. refd); J!Thes v. State, No. 05.-I 1-00069 & 70-CR, 2012 WE 3517314, *2 n.l (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 16, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated ftr publication). When, as in this case, the defendant enters a plea of true at an adjudication hearing, the proceeding becomes a unitary proceeding to determine the remaining issue of punishment, and the introduction of testimony enables the fact finder to intelligently exercise its discretion in the assessment ofpunishment. See C’arroll v. State, 975 S.W.2d 630. 631-32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998): State v. Kersh, 2 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. App——Houston [14th Dist.] 1999), a/j’don othergrounds. 127 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004): Je/fries, 2012 WL 3517314, at *2. Article 37.07 ofthe code ofcriminal procedure provides: Regardless ofthe plea and whether the punishment be assessed by thejudge or the jury. evidence may be offered by the state and the defendant as to (lily matter the court deems relevant to sentencing, including but not limited to the prior criminal record ofthe defendant, his general reputation, his character, an opinion regarding his character, the circumstances of the offense for which he is being tried, and, notwithstanding Rules 404 and 405, Texas Rules ofEvidence, any other evidence of an extraneous crime or bad act that is shown beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence to have been committed by the defendant or for which he could be held criminally responsible, regardless of whether he has previously been charged with or finally convicted ofthe crime or act.

—5--TEx. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. aft. 37.07, 

## § 3(aXl) (emphasis added). Section 3(a) is generally construed broadly. See. e.g.. Muhammadv. State. 46 S.W.3d 493,505 (Tex. App.—E1 Paso 2001.
no pet.); Taylor v. State, 970 S.W.2d 98, 102-03 (‘rex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, pet. ref’d); Mock

t State 848 S.W.2d 215,225 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1992. pet. refd). The court ofcriminal appeals has noted “that the definition of ‘relevant,’ as stated in Rule 401 ofthe Texas Rules ofEvidence, does not readily apply to Article 37.07.” Sbns v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291, 295 (‘rex. Crim. App. 2008); see also TEX. B.. EvID. 401. What is “relevant” to a punishment determination is anything that will assist the fact-finder in determining an appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in
a particular case. See Sims. 273 S.W.3d at 295; Erazo v. State, 144 S.W.3d 487,491 (‘rex. Crim. App. 2004). Appellant’s plea oftrue converted the adjudication hearing into a unitary proceeding. See Kersh, 2 S.W.3d at 638. The only remaining issue was punishment. 

### See Carroll, 975 S.W.2d at 631. Although appellantcontends thetrial court erredby admitting the recordedjail telephone calls, the threatening comments appellant made in those telephone calls were relevant to the issue of punishment. SeeTEx. CODECiuM.PROC.ANN. art. 37.07, 

## § 3(aXl); Carroll. 975 S.W.2dat631-32. Appellant’s reliance on rule 401 is therefore misplaced. Furthermore, the trial court’s implicit determination thatthe probativevalue of the disputed evidence was not substantiallyoutweighedby the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues was within the “zone of reasonable disagreement.” SeeTEx.R. Ev1D.403;seealso Williams i’. State, 958 S.W.2d 186,195 (rex. Crim. App. 1997) (wepresumetrial court engaged inrequiredbalancing testoncerule403 is invoked, and court’s failureto conductbalancingtest ontherecorddoes notimplyotherwise); McGregorv. State, No. 01-10-01085-CR, 2012 WL 3244196, at 23 (rex. App.—Houston [1st Dist] 2012, Aug. 9, 2012, no pet.) (we will uphold trial court’s ruling on rule 403 balancing test, whether explicit or

-6-implied, if it is within zone of reasonable disagreement). Because the challenged evidence was relevant under article 37.07, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by overruling appellant’s oblection, We resolve appellant’s issue against him. We aftirm the trial court’s judgment.

LANA M ‘ERS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEx. R. Apr. P. 47 I 10817F”.U05

—7—

# 0

1nitrI nf \p)Jia1 .FiftIi Jitrirt 

## nf Irxw at t11ai JUDGMENT TOMMY EDWARDS Ill, Appellant Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct. No. No. 05-I 1-00817-CR V. F08-59764-N). Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Moseley and Fillmore participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, the judgment ofthe trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered November 14, 2012.

LANA MYE S JUSTICE