NO. 07-07 -025 7-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B APR IL 17 , 200 9

_________

_________

_________

___ MIKE CANALE S, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 6- 412400; H ON ORABLE CE CI L G. PU RY EAR , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t M ik e C anal es appeal s from hi s c onv icti on for sex ual as saul t of a c hil d and the res ult ing sentenc e of ten y ears o f confinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. By three i ss ues, appel lan t c ontends hi s c onst it uti onal ri g hts w ere v iol ated w hen t he St ate fai led t o p ro duce ex cul pator y ev ide nce and t he tr ial cour t abu sed it s d is creti on and v iol ated his co nst it uti onal r ig hts w hen i t ex cl uded t he te s ti mo ny

o f a ps y c ho l og i s t. W e affi r m.See T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 22. 011 (Vernon 200 3). 1 Differen t v ersions of

the events o f

thatday were prod uced at trial. A Lubb ock 2 pol i c e o ffi c e r t e s t i fi e d t h a t K
. C
. t o l d h i m t h a t a ft e r s h e a n d a p p e l l a n t a rg u e d aboutthe methampheta mine, sh e s tay ed i n the room w hil e appel lan t w ent to the bathroom. W hen appel lan t c ame out, he g ra bbed K .C . and threw her on t he bed. 2 Back g ro und Al thoug h appel lan t doe s n ot c hal len g e th e s u ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing his co nv icti on, s ome factual reci tati on is neces sar y to an unders tandi ng of his appeal . By an Apr il 2006 ind ictment, the Stat e all eg ed that, on or about Febr uar y 18, 2006, appel lan t caus ed hi s p eni s t o penetrate the female sex ual org an of [K. C. ], a c hil d y oung er than 17 y ears of ag e, and not his spous e. Fol low ing appel lan t’ s ple a of no t g uil ty , the c ase w as 1 t ri e d t o a ju ry. Ev ide nce showed th at, on s ev eral day s d ur ing Febr uar y 2006, appell ant, then 43, engaged in sexual inte rcourse w ith K.C., a 16 y ear-old girl. Th ey also en gaged in the use of methamphetami ne to g ether
. Those fact s were notdi sput ed. Nor w as itdi sput ed th at app ellant , during the time K.C. was w ith him , provided me tha mp het am ine to K.C. and sold itto others. Appell ant’ s dis putes w it h K.C. ’s ve rs ion of the fact s c enter on h er tes ti mony that on F ebr uar

y 18, the tw o arg ued ov er some mis si ng m ethamphet amine. She tes ti fied appel lan t forc ibl y

pul led her

out of the s how er

i n the Lubboc k mot el ro om i n w hic h the y w e re s t a y i n g , t o o kh e r i n t o t h e b e d ro o m w h e re tw o o t h e r m e n w e re p re s e n t , a n d t o o ko ff 2 her cl othes
. These tw o men pu ll ed her leg s apar

t and held K.C. dow n w hil e appel lan t “ sat ” on h er chest a nd h eld he r arms down. He then forcef ully engaged in v aginal intercou rse w ith he r. K.C. fu rther test if ied she w as hu rt during this encou nte r.App ellant testif ied K.C. told h im she w as 20 and he be liev ed h er. Mistake of fact 3 re g ardin g a compl ain ant’ s ag e is not a defense to sex ual ass aul t of a ch ild. Jackson v. State, 889 S.W .2d 615 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [14 Dist.] 1994 , pet . ref ’d). th 3 The Stat e’s ev ide nce als o i ncl uded ap pel lan t’ s w ri tten sta tement to Lu bbock pol ic e, in w hic h he admitted he had sex ual int ercourse w it h a w il li ng K.C
. Appel lan t t est ified at the puni shmentphas e of tr ial , c onfessed to hav ing sex w it h K.C
. and ack now led g ed he w as g uil ty of sex ual as saul t bec ause she w as under the ag e of 17 and not his sp ouse. 3 Appel lan t mai ntai ned, how ev er , t hat h e d id n o t u se force ag ain st K.C . and thatsh e l ied about the e v ents of Febr uar y 18. H e tes ti fied, a nd a former g ir lfri end t est ified , t hat h e w as not w it h K. C. at that par ti cul ar ti me but w as w it h the g ir lfri end. The ju ry found appell ant g uil ty

of sex ual as saul t of a c hil d and sent enced hi m to t en y ears o f impr is onment a nd a $5,000 fine. Appe lla n t f ile d a mot ion for n ew tr ial thatw as deni ed. This appeal foll ow ed. Iss ues Each of app ellant ’s three issue s conce rns the p unish me nt ph ase o f his trial. App ellantw as eligible fo r comm unity supervisi on. Hi s c o n t ent ion on app eal is thathis sent ence w oul d hav e been li g hter , and the jur y mig ht w ell hav e re commended communi ty super v is ion , i f he had be en abl e to make u se of ex cul pator y ev ide nce before t he j ur y .Th e Child Prote ctiv e Services Di v ision (“CPS”) of the T exas Departm entof Family 4 and Protect iv e Services ( “DFPS”). 4 Ana ly sis T estim ony Ex clude d By the Trial Court W e beg in w it h appel lan t’ s s econd and thi rd i ss ues, by w hic h he compl ain s o f the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng di sal low ing the puni shment -p hase tes ti mony o f Dr . W il li am H oke, a psy chol o gis t w ho examined K.C . for Chi ld Protecti v e Ser v ic es. I n hi s s econd i ss ue, h e

4 arg ues the tr ial courtabused its disc re ti on bydeny ing his pro ffer of Hoke’ s test imony

and by hi s th i rd i s s ue , c on te nd s th e tr i al c ou rt’ s ex c l us i on of th e s am e te s ti mo ny v i olated his ri g ht t o c onfrontati on of w it ness es under the Si xth A mendment t o the U nit ed St ates Con sti tuti on. Seco nd Is sue- -E

xclusionof Dr

. Hoke’ s T est im ony Hok e test if ied outs ide the presenc e of the jur y to his i nter

v iews o f K.C. and her mo the r, and to the resu lts of the psychological tests he adm inistered to K.C. T he rep ort he prepared for CP S was admitted for the pur pose of his v oir

di re tes ti mony . H oke tes ti fied tha t his assessm entindicate d K.C. exhibited disorders includ ing depress ive disorde r, anx iety di sorder and oppos it ion al defiant dis ord e r ( “O DD ”) ; and ex hib it ed amphet amine dependenc e and adol esc ent anti soc ial behav ior
. He di ag nosed her als o as su ffer ing from sex ual and phy si cal abuse , and readi ng and mathemati cs di sorders. Appel lan t’ s c ounse l q uest ion ed H oke about OD D. H oke ex pla ine d t h e di sorder i s c haract er iz ed by o p p o sit io n a lit y, re b e ll io u sn e ss an d de f ia n ce . He sa id its sym p to m s o f te n in clu d e “lyin g,5

stea ling, condu ct dif

f iculties, prob lem s at schoo l, being belligerent, acting out, ta lking back [and dis re spect] of author ity .” As ked how he woul d ex pectthe sy mptom of ly ing to “p lay out,” he s aid an ind iv idu al w it h ODD has a v er y diff ic ulttime accept ing respo nsi bil ity for h er behav ior and mayl ie to g et ou t of percei v ed troubl e. He conc lud ed byagreei ng thathe w as not s ay ing K.C . l ied on t he w it ness st and butthatsu ch behav ior i s c onsi ste nt w it h the dia g nosi s. On cross -e x aminat ion , he ag re ed w it h the prosec utor thathe was spec ula ti ng a s t o w h a tK
. C
. wo u l d d o i n a s p e c i fi cs i t u a t i o n . Th e tr i a l c o u rtd i d n o ta l l o w H o k e t o t e s t i fy before t he j ur

y . The tr ial co urt has broad di sc re ti on to determi ne the admi ss ibi li ty of ev ide nce and it s ru lin g s houl d notbe rev ersed on appe al absen t a cl ear abus e of di sc re ti on. Mo ntgom er

y v . St ate, 810 S.W .2d 372, 380 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1990) (o p. on reh’ g ); Richar ds v. State, 932 S.W .3d 2 13, 2 1 5 ( Tex .App. –El Pas o 1996, pet. ref’d)
. See also W illover v. State , 70 S. W .3d 841 ,84 5 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 02) (w e mu st uph old th e trial court’s ruling if itw as cor re ct under

any appl ic abl e the or

y of l a w). U nli ke the g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e of tr ial , “t he q uest ion at puni shment is not w hether the defendant has co mmitt ed a cr ime, but instea d, w hatsente nce sh ou ld be asse ssed. ” El li son v. State, 201 S.W .3d 7 14, 7 18 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06). Article 37. 07 o f the Cod e of

Cri min al Proced ure pe rmits evidence of “any m atter the cour t deems rel ev ant t o s entenc ing .” Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 37.07, § 3( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 7)
. Rel ev ancy in the puni shment phase is “a q uest ion of w hat is helpf ul to the jury in det ermin ing the app ropriate sente nce for a particula r defend antin a par ti cul ar ca se. ” Tex . R . Ev id. 401; El li son, 201 S.W .3d a t 718 , citi ng Roge rs v. State, 991 S. W .2d 2 63, 2 65 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)
. T h u s, t h e admi ss ibi li ty of ev ide nce dur ing6

“t he puni shmentphas e of a non-c api tal tri al is a functi on of pol icy rather than a q uest ion of logi cal relevance.” El

li son, 201 S.W .3d a t 719
. Non ethel ess , a tr ial jud g e mustoperate w it hin the bounds of Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce 401, 402 and 403. Id. at 72 2. W e find the t ri al cour

t’ s e x clu sio n o f

H oke’ s t est imony

w ell w it hin i ts dis creti on. Hok e’s ev alu ati on and re por t of K.C. si mply

l is ted t he te xtbook

sy mptoms ass oci ated w it h the c ondi ti ons he dia g nosed
. OD D w as one of s ev eral debi li tati ng condi ti ons he di ag nosed in K.C . and a t endency to li e w as onl y

one o f m a ny ch aract er is ti cs as soc iat ed w it h the dis order
. Ev en i f w e ac ceptappel lan t’ s c ontent ion th a t K. C. ’s credi bil ity w as a c entral facto r in the jury ’s unde rstand ing of the circum stan ces of

his of fense , we f in d Hoke’s ev alu ati on and r e p o rthol d l ittl e probati v e v alu e w it h respect t o the tr uthfulnes s o f her v ersi on of the ci rc umstan ces . W e see no abuse of dis creti on i n the tr ial co urt’ s c oncl usi on that his tes ti mony w oul d not be hel pful to the jur y in it s deter minat ion o f an ap p ro pr iat e sent ence. On ap pea l, app ellantalso em pha siz es a stat em entin Ho ke’s repo rt th at K.C. to ld him a former boyfrie nd “ g ot he r ‘ho oked’ ” on metha mphetami ne after putt ing i t i n her

food and drinks. Appe llant po ints ou t K.C. ma de th e sam e allegation a gainst him in her direct t e s timo ny. He argues the chan ces tw o me n laced her food and drink w ith the drug are suffici entl y

sl im t hat t he j ur

y woul d hav e recog niz ed K. C. ’s tes ti mony as untr ue i f they

had know n of her

st atement to H oke. See Fox v. Sta te, 115 S.W .3d 5 50 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D ist .] 2002, pet. re f’d) ( address ing the doct ri ne of cha nces ). The record i ndi cat es st app ellant ’s conte ntion here w as notb rought to the a tten tion of t he trial cou rt. W e the reforeAppel lan t’ s i ss ue al so menti ons Ar ti cl e I, Secti on 10 of the Tex as Con sti tuti on, b ut 5 he di d notse t fort h thi s a s a bas is of his co mplai nt t o the tri al cour t. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 33. 1. Fur ther , on appeal , he ci tes no a uthor ity thatthe Tex as Con sti tuti on offers any g re ater or different protecti on th an th e Uni ted States Const it uti on on thi s point
. W e therefore w il l not address the Tex as cons ti tuti onal cl aims se paratel y . Bl ack v. Sta te, 26 S.W .3d 8 95, 8 96 n.4 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) ; Muniz v. Sta te, 8 51 S.W .2d 238 , 251 -52 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 93). Appel lan t’ s a rg ument in suppo rt of t his thi rd is sue als o inc lud es a re ferenc e to a 6 state me nt w ritten by K.C. in Janua ry 200 7 , c o n c e rning accusatio ns against he r fa the r. That s tatementw as not o ffered i nto e v ide nce, so w e do not a ddress i t. 7 w il l not a ddress i t. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 33. 1; W il son v. St

ate, 71 S .W .3d 3 46, 3 49 ( an app ellant ’s conte ntion on ap pea l must co mp ort w ith the specif ic objectio n ma de a t trial). W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. Third Issue –Con frontation Clause In ap pellan t’s third is s u e , h e con ten ds exclusion of Hoke’s testim ony v iolate d his ri g ht of c onfronta ti on unde r the S ixth A mendment t o the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on. 5 W e are unabl e to see a Con frontat ion Cl ause v iol ati on in thi s ci rc umstan ce. U .S. 6 Con st. amend V I. See ge ner all y Cra wfor

d v . Washi ngton, 541 U. S. 3 6, 12 4 S. Ct . 135 4, 158 L.Ed. 2d 177 (2 004)
. Appel lan t reli es pr imar il y on Dav is v. Al ask a, 415 U. S. 3 08, 3 09, 94 S. Ct . 110 5, 39 L.E d.2d 347 ( 1974) and Thom as v. State , 669 S. W .2d 4 20, 4 21 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1984, pet. ref’d)
. Bot h tho se cas e s in volve d l imi tati ons st pla ced on cross -e x aminat ion of prosec uti on w it ness es. Davis, 415 U. S. a t 309 ; Thomas, 669 S. W .2d a t 421
. Thati s n o t the s it uati on here. Appel lan t ac know led g es that, forIn arg ument at the cl ose of the g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e of tr ial , app ell ant’ s c ounse l 7 tol d the j ur

y he “t ook a cal cul ated ri sk ” and “l et [K.C .] g o” becau se he “d idn ’t si g n on to be at up on teenag e g ir ls .” He f u rt h e r st a ted it w as not n eces sar y to do s o bec ause “i f y ou listene d caref ully , [the record] is abu nda nt w ith incon sistencie s, w ith stat em ent s thatsimply don ’t jiv e.” 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 119 4, 10 L.Ed .2d 215 (1963 ). 8 C ontai ned w it hin the compl ete C PS fil e w as a l etter authored by K.C . c ontai nin g 9 poss ibl e recant ati ons of prev iou s s ex ual as saul t al leg ati ons agai n sther father ; a memorand um from a CP S ca se worker des cr ibi ng K.C . as a c ompuls iv e l iar and a manipu lat iv e i ndi v idu al; and two ev alu ati ons of K.C ., one of w hic h w as Hok e’s repor t. 8 tacti cal reason s, he c hose not t o c ro ss -e x amine K.C. W e ag re e w it h the Sta te t hat 7 nothi ng i n the tr ial co urt’ s ruli n g e x cl udi ng H oke’ s t est imony precl uded or

i mpeded appel lan t’ s a bil ity

to re cal l K.C . for cross -e x aminat ion . Appell ant’ s thi rd iss ue i s o v er ru led
.

Br ady M ater ial Iss ue On e–Br

ady Vi ola ti on In hi s first is sue, appel lan t arg ues his F our teent h Amendment r ig ht t o a fai r tr ial w as v iolate d w hen the St ate failed to produ ce Hoke’s repo rt and othe r ex culpa tory evidence in v iol ati on of the ru le anno unced i n Br ady v. Ma ry

lan d. CPS be cam e involv ed wi th K.C. 8 after the even ts o f

F ebr uar

y 2006. Tr ial tes ti mony i ndi cat es that DF PS fil ed a cons er v atorshi p proceed ing co ncer nin g K.C . i n anot her Lubboc k C ounty

co urt. Dur ing appel lan t’ s t ri al, hi s c ounse l became aw are tha t th e doc uments he h ad been prov ide d throug h the open- file pol icy of the L ubboc k C ounty D is tr ict Attor ney ’s off ic e di d noti ncl ude sev eral document s from the CP S fil e held b y t h e D e par tment. M ostsi g nific antl y , t he document s p ro v ide d di d noti ncl ude Ho ke ’s repor t. The S tate present s s ev eral 9W e ex press no opi nio n on the S tate’ s o ther co ntent ion s. H ow ev er

w e do note our 10 disagreem entwi t h a p p ellant ’s arg um entthatthe failure of the St ate to disclose Hoke ’s repo rt prio r t o trial allow ed th e prose cution to prese nt to the jury, unchallen ged, K.C.’s v ersi on of the Febr uar

y 18 e v ents
. By the conc lus ion of the puni shment -p hase ev ide nce, both K.C . and appel lan t had g iv en th e j ur y thei r v ersi ons of those ev ents
. 9 cont ent ions in respo nse. It cont end s a ppe llant did not pre serv e his Brady compl ain t; the infor mati on was not mat er ial ; app ell ant h ad the infor mati on in ti me to make u se of it at t ri al and did not re q uest a cont inu ance; the infor mati on was not s ubj ectto Br ady bec ause it s ex is tenc e w as not k now n to the p ro sec uti on and becau se CP S was not a p art of the “p ro sec uti on te am;” and that itw as not s ubj ectto Brady a lso b e ca use itw as not admis si ble
. W e a d d re ss onl y one of the St ate’ s c ontent ion s. The record s hows t he 10 infor mati on c ame to appel lan t’ s atten ti on dur ing tr ial , and w e ag re e he had t he i nformati on in ti me to make u se of it. W hen the prose cution withhold s e v iden ce favorable to th e de fend ant , due process is v iol ated w hen the ev ide nce is mater ial ei ther to g uil t or

puni shment
. W

yatt v . St ate, 23 S.W .3d 1 8, 27 ( Te x.Cr im.A pp. 2 000) ; Ol iv ar ez v. Sta te, 171 S.W .3d 2 83, 2 90 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 2005, no p et.) , citing Brad y, 373 U. S. at 87. An al leg ed th Brady v iol ati on i s a nal yz ed i n li g ht of al l the other ev ide nce adduc ed at t ri al. Hampto n v. State, 86 S.W .3d 603 , 612 -13 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 2 0 0 2 ). The State ’s duty to rev eal Br ady mater ial att aches w hen the i nformati on c omes i nto i ts poss ess ion , notw hen i t i s req uest ed. Thom as v. State, 841 S.W .2d 399 , 407 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 2). T o e s t ablish reversible er ro r, a de fendant must show that (1) the Stat e fail ed to di sc los e ev ide nce, reg ardle ss of the p ro sec uti on’ s g ood or bad faith; (2 ) the w it hhel d ev ide nce is fav orabl e to him; and (3 ) the e v ide nce is mater ial
. Ham pton, 8 6 S.W .3d at 612 . Ev iden ce is “mate rial” if there is aBy thi s t ime, the tr ial w as in the p uni shmentphas e. 11 10 re asona ble probabi li ty

thathad the ev ide nce been di sc los ed to the defense t he resul t of the p ro ceedi ng woul d hav e been different. Id .; Michaelwicz v. Sta te, 186 S.W .3d 6 01, 6 13 (Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2006, pet. ref’d) , citing Unite d Sta tes v. Ba gley, 476 U. S. 6 67, 6 76, 1 05 S.C t. 3375, 87 L. Ed.2d 481 ( 1985)
. A “reason abl e probabi li ty ” is a probabi li ty suff ic ien t t o under mine the c onfidenc e i n the outc ome of the t ri al. Id. Incorpo rated in the th ird “mat eriality ” prong is a requireme nt th at the defend ant mu st be prejudiced by the State ’s fail ure to dis cl ose the fav orabl e ev ide nce. Har mv. Sta te, 1 8 3 S
. W
. 3 d 4 03, 4 06 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)
. Here, the record indicat es a CPS case w orker app eare d at the beginnin g of the th ird day of trial testim ony, in respo nse to app ellant ’s subp oen a. App ellantw as the n pu tting his cas e- in- chi ef duri ng the g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e before the jur y . Dur ing tes ti mony outs ide the presenc e of the jur

y , t he c asewor ker

des cr ibe d the findi ng s c ontai ned in Hok e’s repor t. The aff ida v itof appel lan t’ s c ounse l that acc ompani ed hi s mot ion for n ew tr ial i ndi cat es als o tha t couns el re v iewed th e CPS f il e w it h the casewor ker pri or to her tes ti mony . Hok e appea re d at trial later the same day w ith his repo rt, a lso in respo nse to ap pellan t’s subp oen a, an d also tes ti fied out si de th e presenc e of t he jur y . Al thoug h the tr ial co urt di d notper mit Hok e to 11 tes ti fy before t he j ur

y , app ell ant h ad th e ev ide nce o f H o ke ’s di ag nosi s o f K.C. and the con t e n t s o f h i s re p o rti n t i me fo r h i m t o m a k e e ffe ct i v e u s e o f i ta tt h e t r i a l ’ s puni shment phase
. Little v

. St ate, 9 9 1 S
. W
. 2 d 8 6 4 , 8 6 6 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) (p reju d ic e i s n o tsh o wn w hen t he i nformati on i s d is cl osed to t he defendant in ti me for hi m to make effect iv e use of itat tr ial ). Appel lan t contend s he w oul d hav e made a different deci si on to cross -e x amine11

K.C . i f H oke’ s re por

t had been prov ide d ear li er . But, as w e hav e not ed, we s ee not hin g that w oul d hav e precl uded appel lan t from re cal li ng K.C
. after he bec ame aw are of Ho ke’ s repor t. See Palm er

v. Sta te , 902 S.W .2d 561 , 565 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [1 Dist.] 1995 , no pe t.) (in st a sim ila r cir cu m st a n ce , f in d in g Brady ma terial cam e to light in tim e for defend antto ma ke use of it at t ri al) ; Gi vens v. Sta te, 749 S.W .2d 954, 957 (Tex .App. –For t W orth 1988 , pet. re f’d) ( appel lan t dis cov ered the s tatementear ly enoug h to make u se of it at t ri al)
. If, after appel lan t rev iewed H oke’ s repor t or the other

i nformati on, h e neede d more ti me to cons ide r its impa ct, it w as incum ben t on him t o request a cont inua nce or re cess in the procee dings. See D avi

s v . St ate , 992 S.W .2d 8 , 12 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1996, no p et.)( faile d st to show prej udi ce from untimel y di sc los ure of ev ide nce w here defendant did not re q uesta cont inua nce to secure th e prese nce o f a w itness h e argued h e w ould have subpo ena ed if he h ad b een provi ded the com plaine d-of informa tion so one r). Findi ng appel lan t has not sat is fied th e mater ial ity prong of a Brady c o mp l a i nt , we ov er ru le his first is sue. H av ing ov er ru led eac h of appel lan t’ s is sues , w e af firm the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.