## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 11 - 00491 - CR

ROBERT LEE BOWEN APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT CO URT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Introd uction Appellant Robert Lee Bowen appeals his conviction for aggravated assault

o n a p ublic servant. In two issues, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by (1) not lett ing his expert give an opin ion and (2) not conducting a hearing on Appellant’ s request to remov e and replace hi s court
- appointed attorney. We affirm.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 Background Facts and Procedural History Officer Jared Salzman was patrol l in g central Fort Worth one morning when he saw a car suspiciously dart into a driveway. C ruis ing past, Offi cer Salzman ran the car’s license plate number on his mobile computer , which immediately responded with an alert that t he car had been reported stolen. C all ing for back

up, Officer Salzman wheeled back to the driveway and, without blocking t he car
in , app roached Appellant with his service weapon drawn

. Appellant had been standing outside the car, looking it over; a single
passenger remained in the front seat. Officer Salzman ordered Appellant to step away from the car

. Appellant gave him a “ blank ” stare , calmly climbed into the

car , and “ floor [ ed ] i t ” out of the driveway and down the street. Off i cer Salzman
returned to h i s patrol car , activated its lights and siren, and went after Appellant

. Appellant ran the car over a stop sign , hopped a curb in t o Gl enwood Park , and drove across the grass before nose - d i v ing down a small ravine above a creek bed

. H e and the passenger crawled out of the wreck and fle d in opposite directions

. As o fficers respond ing to the call for back

- up followed the passenger west , A ppellant took the creek bed east and disappeared into a tunnel pass ing b eneath the roadway. Officer Salzman saw him go in and followed

. The tunnel was large enough to walk through but unlit and very dark. With his flashlight Officer Salzman could see A p pellant progressing through the tunnel against the wall , looking back over his right shoulder. Officer Salzman dr e w his3 taser and warned Appellant that he would use it if Appellant did not stop. As Appellant pressed on ward , Officer Salzman saw a handgun held down by Appellant ’s side close st to the tunnel wall

. Officer Salzman substituted his service pistol for the taser. Appellant turned suddenly toward the officer , who then fired six rounds , striking Appellant at least twice

. Appellant released his we apon and dropped to his knees. As other officers arriv ed in the tunnel, Appellant remarked , “ Y ou better be glad you did that

. I was going to shoot you and shoot mys e lf. ” Emergency personnel t ook Appellant to the hospital. He had nonfatal

w ounds th r ough his wrist and across the fleshy portion of his midsection. He had also sustaine d a small defect or dent in the center of his chest.
A grand jury returned an indictment charg ing Appellant with attempted capital murder and aggravated assault on a public s ervant

. The trial court appointed attorney Richard Kline t o r epresent the defense

. Several months before trial , Appellant filed a pro se letter addressed to the trial court , complaining of Kline’s representation. A few months later, he also filed, pro s e, a “ Declaration of Conflict between Attorney and Client and Motion for Substitution of Appointed Counsel.” The record does not indicate whether either of these was presented to the trial court , but the court’s docket sheet indicates that copies of both were forwarded to Appellant’s counsel.
T he State presented e vidence at trial that the wounds Appellant had sustained were consistent with his having b een fired upon from the front. Ronald4 Fazio , a board

- certified forensic scientist and certified firearms examiner, testified for the defense that , after examining the shirt Appellant had worn when he was shot , as well as numerous photographs of Appellant’s injuries, he had formed the belief that Appellant had been shot in the rib cage while bent over in a cr ouching position and that the bullet had passed through a crease in the folds of Appellant’s flesh, which caus ed injury to both the top and bottom portions of the

crease. Fazio also testified that in his opinion, Appellant “could not have been facing dire ctly towards the officer” when he was shot. The jury found Appellant guilty of aggravated assault of a public servant. Appellant pled true to the enhancement allegation in the indictment, and the trial court assessed his punishment at thirty

- eight years’ confinement and sentenced
him accordingly. Expert Opinion In his first issue, Appellant clai m s that the trial court erred by sustaining the State’s objection to Fazio ’s opinion testi mony about the “nature of the wounds” Appellant had sustained when he wa s shot

. Appellant argues, “If Fazio had been allowed to testify to the nature of Appell a nt’s wounds, a fact issue would have been created as to whether Appellant was turning to face Officer Salzman or whether Appellant’s back was actually facing Officer S alzman when he [Salzman] fired his weapon.” In other words, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by not letting Fazio give his opinion that Appellant was shot from the back to the front rather than from front to back, as the State’s evidence had sh own . If the5 evidence showed that O fficer Salzman had fired while Appellant was facing away from him, it would imply that Appellant had not turned a weapon toward the officer at the time he was shot , which would undercut the State’s theory of the case and possibly would have led the jury to acquit. We reject thi s claim for two reasons. First, b ecause Appellant did not make an offer of proof, it is unclear from the record precisely what questions he

w ished to ask of Fazio and what answers he expected to el icit from him

. Rule of

e vidence 103 (a)(2) provides that [e] rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected , and . . . [ i ] n case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the subst ance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer, or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked. Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2); see Holmes v. State , 323 S.W.3d 163, 168 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ; Mays v. State , 285 S.W.3d 884, 889

– 90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ; Chambers v. State , 866 S.W.2d 9, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), cert. denied , 511 U.S. 1100 (1994) ; Hardeman v. State , No. 02

- 10

- 00025

- CR, 2011 WL 1901978 , at * 4 (Tex. App.

–– Fort Worth May 19, 2011 , no pet. ) ( mem. op., not designated fo r publication )

. Second, even if we were to infer from the record and Appellant’s brief that Appellant expected Fazio to testify that the bullets had come from the back to the front rather than the front to the back and that the trial court erred to prohib it the opinion , we would hold the error harmless because Fazio present ed t h at very opinion to the jury shortly after the ruling that Appellant claims kept it out

.6 Appellant argues that the trial court erred by preventing Fazio from giving opinion testimon y about the nature of Appellant’s wounds, that is, whether they were entry or exit wounds. But , shortly after the ruling that Appellant claims kept Fazio’s opinion out, the record shows that Fazio testified [i] n my opinion, at the time the bullet defects , both in the wrist and in the side, he could not have been facing directly towards the officer. The one in the center, which I originally thought and looks very much like a bullet defect, is just not consistent with a bullet. [Appellant] would likely be dead if that was a bullet. So there’s nothing in there that indicates that he was facing directly the officer at the time of the bullet. Because the opinion evidence that Appellant faults the trial court for excluding

was , in fact, admitted, if the tria l court’s ruling excluding the evidence was error, we disregard it. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b): Johnson v. State , 43 S.W.3d 1 , 3

– 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s first issue

. Keeping Counsel In his second issue, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by not conducting a hearing on Appellant’s dissatisfaction with his court

- appointed attorney

. The State responds that t he trial court did not reversibly err by failing to conduct a hearing on Appellant’s pro se motion t o substitute appointed counsel because Appellant failed to set it for a hearing and failed to plead adequate grounds for substitution. We agree with the State

. A defendant unsatisfied with his attorney has the burden of bringing his complain t to the tria l court’s attention by filing a motion to substitute and setting it for a hearing. See Malco m v. State , 628 S.W.2d 790, 79 1

– 9 2 (Tex. Crim. App.7 [Panel Op.] 1982); Garner v. State , 864 S.W.2d 92, 98

– 99 (Tex. App.

–– Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d). Ap pellant’s pro se motion declaring a conflict with his attorney prays for a hearing, but there is nothing in the record to indicate that Appellant ever presented his motion to the trial court judge or attempted to set it for a hearing
with either the trial court judge or the court coordinator. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s second issue. See Garner , 864 S.W.2d at 99. Conclusion Having overruled both of Appellant’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

ANNE GARDNER JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: July 25, 2013