Affirmed and Opinion Filed April 9, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00564-CR ROGER ALLEN STULCE, JR, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380-82427-2012



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Francis Roger Allen Stulce, Jr. appeals his conviction for the sexual assa ult of H.S. After finding appellant guilty as charged, the jury assessed puni shment at twenty years and a $10,000 fine. In a single issue, appellant claims the trial cour t erred by allowing certain evidence during punishment. We affirm. After H.S. testified appellant repeatedly ra ped her, the jury found him guilty of sexual assault. During punishment, Detective Matt Baxt er of the McKinney Police Department told the jury he began investigating this case after a wo man reported she had responded to a Craiglist ad and was sexually assaulted by appe llant. Baxter searched the in ternet and found eight Craigslist ads related to appellant’s apartment. The Stat e offered printouts of Craigslist ads found on the internet. Appellant had no objections to State’s exhibits 7 and 10, but ar gued exhibits 8, 9, and–2– 11 through 14 were not properly authenticated as being author ed or placed by appellant and should not have been admitted. On appeal, he cl aims the admission of these exhibits was error and we must reverse this case for a new punishment hearing. We first note that exhibits 8, 12, and 14 were offered but not admitted. Thus, appellant’s complaint as to these three exhibits lacks merit. With respect to exhibits 9, 11, and 13, even assuming the trial court erred by admitting the evidence, we conclude appellant’s substantial rights were not affected. The erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence is nonconstitutional error. Walters v.
State , 247 S.W.3d 204, 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Under ru le 44.2(b), we disregard nonconstitutional error that doe s not affect the substant ive rights of appellant. Potier v. State , 68 S.W.3d 657, 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Substantia l rights are not affected if, based on the record as a whole, we have a fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury or had but a slight effect. Motilla v. State , 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). After reviewing the record, we conclude the e ffect of the complained-of exhibits was not substantial or injurious. Appella nt was found guilty of raping H.S. During punishment, the jury heard the explicit te stimony of three other of his rape vic tims, only one of whom responded to a Craigslist ad. Each female victim said appell ant portrayed himself as a harmless “nice guy” in order to gain their trust, then brutally rape d them. In addition, two female undercover police officers who posed as women interested in subleasing appellant’s apartment testified. At least one of the officers said appellant told her she could live in the apartment if she paid him $50 a month, gave him a “blow job” every month, and ha d sex with him that day as a deposit. After reviewing all the evidence as well as the entire record, we conclude the admission of the ads depicted in exhibits 9, 11, or 13 did not influenc e the jury or had but a sl ight effect. We overrule appellant’s single issue.–3– We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 140564F.U05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ROGER ALLEN STULCE, JR, Appellant
No. 05-14-00564-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380-82427-2012. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered April 9, 2015.