COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00450-CR

NO. 02-13-00451-CR

NO. 02-13-00452-CR

NO. 02-13-00453-CR

NO. 02-13-00454-CR

NO. 02-13-00455-CR

NO. 02-13-00456-CR

NO. 02-13-00457-CR

JACOB CORDERO APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NOS. 1288869D, 1297257D, 1297258D, 1297259D, 1297261D, 

1297262D, 1297263D, 1297264D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

A drive-by shooting occurred, multiple persons were injured, and one died. 

Appellant Jacob Cordero was indicted and tried in eight consolidated cases 

stemming from the drive-by shooting: one charge with two counts of engaging in 

organized crime and murder and seven charges with two counts for engaging in 

organized crime and aggravated assault. A jury found Cordero guilty of all 

sixteen offenses and assessed his punishment at ninety-nine years’ confinement 

for each count in the murder case and at fifty years’ confinement for each count

in each of the other seven cases. The trial court sentenced Cordero accordingly

and ordered that the sentences run concurrently. 

In two issues, Cordero asserts that the trial court erred by admitting expert 

cell-phone-investigation testimony from United States Secret Service Agent Paul 

Ahner. Telephone records for the cell phone number being used by Cordero on 

the evening of the offenses were admitted into evidence through a sponsoring 

employee of AT&T. Agent Ahner then testified from the records concerning the 

calls made from Cordero’s cell phone and the location of the cell phone towers 

accessed by Cordero’s cell phone at or near the time of the shooting, thus 

identifying the location of Cordero’s phone at various times on the night of the 

shooting. Cordero challenged at trial and challenges on appeal the “reliability of 

the science of locating cell phone towers and the cell phones using the towers” 

and the “reliability of the technique for locating the position of the cell towers and 

identifying the phones placing calls through those towers.” The trial court 

conducted a hearing on the admissibility of Agent Ahner’s testimony; Cordero 
3

asserts that the trial court could have taken judicial notice of the validity of the 

scientific theories underlying the collection of cell phone to cell tower 

transmissions and the relevant geographic locations of cell towers if the State 

had provided the trial court with a relevant court decision accepting the 

underlying science as valid, but Cordero contends that the State failed to do so. 

Cordero also complains that Agent Ahner did not know whether the procedure he 

used to plot the locations of Cordero’s phone on the night of the shooting was a 

scientifically accepted practice; Agent Ahner testified only that this is the 

procedure utilized by the United States Secret Service. 

The State argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

admitting Agent Ahner’s testimony. The State contends that Agent Ahner’s 

testimony was admissible as lay witness testimony, points out that “cell site 

analysis enjoys overwhelming acceptance in the federal judiciary,” and requests 

this court to take judicial notice of its reliability.2 Alternatively, the State argues 

that, in any event, any error was harmless because Detective Cedillo offered 

essentially the same testimony as Agent Ahner.

We agree with the State that error, if any, in the admission of Agent 

Ahner’s testimony was rendered harmless by the subsequent unobjected-to

 

2We question whether the record created in the trial court during the 

reliability hearing sufficiently establishes the reliability of the underlying scientific 

theory and technique of cell phone cell tower tracking, and moreover, judicial 

notice of reliability is an inquiry better performed by our court of criminal appeals. 

Cf. Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (performing 

reliability analysis of HGN test). 
4

testimony of Dectective Cedillo. See, e.g., Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 282 

& n.82 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (explaining general rule that error in admission of 

evidence may be rendered harmless by subsequent admission of same evidence 

without objection); Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2003) (same); Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 716–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) 

(same); Anderson v. State, 717 S.W.2d 622, 628 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (same). 

Detective Cedillo testified,

Q. At the point or at some point, then, were you able to obtain the 

Defendant’s cell phone records?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do with the records that you obtained?

A. At that time I began to identify the numbers that he was calling 

and more specifically focusing on the time and date of this offense.

Q. Focusing in on the time and date of this offense, were you able 

to utilize cell tower records in providing you some additional 

information?

A. Yes.

Q. And using those records, what did you learn?

A. I learned that Jacob Cordero was at or near the scene of this 

offense when this shooting was taking place. I also learned that 

minutes after that, Jacob Cordero traveled towards the east side of 

Fort Worth or the Poly area for several minutes and then, after that, 

traveled back south and later rested in Burleson.

This testimony by Dective Cedillo proves the same facts proved through Agent 

Aher’s testimony: the location of Cordero’s cell phone on the evening of the 

shooting both before and after the shooting. We therefore hold that, even 
5

assuming that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Agent Aher’s 

testimony, this error was harmless based on the subsequent admission of 

Detective Cedillo’s testimony, which was admitted without objection. See

Anderson, 717 S.W.2d at 628 (“Inadmissible evidence can be rendered harmless 

if other evidence at trial is admitted without objection and it proves the same fact 

that the inadmissible evidence sought to prove.”). 

We overrule Cordero’s two issues, and we affirm the trial court’s 

judgments.

/s/ Sue Walker

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 28, 2015