AFFIRM and Opinion Filed February 25, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-01180-CR ROLMAN GARCIA-RAMIREZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1675687-M 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Molberg, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Whitehill A jury convicted appellant of cont inuous sexual abuse of a chi ld and assessed punishment at thirty-eight years in prison. In a single issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay evidence about who sent certain text messages . Assuming the issue was preserved for our review and there was error, the record shows there was no harm since the complainant provided the same o r similar testimony without obje ction. We thus affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged with contin uous sexual abuse of a child, MD, appellant’s wife’s sister. MD testified about appe llant’s abuse, which began when she was eight and continued until–2– she was approximately fourteen. The jury convicted appellant o f continuous sexual abuse of a child and assessed punishment at th irty-eight years in prison.
II. A NALYSIS Appellant’s sole issue argues th at the trial court erred by ad mitting hearsay evidence about whether appellant was the person w ho sent certain text messages to MD. A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law We review a trial court’s decisi on to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. Martinez v. State , 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2010). Abuse of discret ion occurs only if the decision is “so clearly wrong as to lie outside the zone within which reasonable people might disagree.” Taylor v. State , 268 S.W.3d 571, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to pro ve the truth of the matter asserted and is inadmissible unless a statute or rule of except ion applies. T EX
. R. E VID
. 801(d), 802. A party claiming the erroneous admission of hearsay must make a timely objection and secure a ruling or the issue is not preserved for appellate review. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1; Mack v. State , 872 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, no pet.) (holding any error in admission of hearsay testimony was not preserved because defendant failed to make a timely objection and secure a ruling on the objection). The complained-of testimony was elicited through the testimony of MD’s sister, Alma. Specifically, appellant complains the testimony was improperly admitted hearsay—that is, that “Alma’s testimony that MD told he r that the ‘unidentified sende r’ was [appellant] was offered for the truth of the matter asserted.” B. Was appellant harmed? Assuming the issue was preserved and that admitting the testim ony was error, the record does not demonstrate that appellant was harmed. The erroneous admission of hearsay evidence is–3– nonconstitutional error. Johnson v. State , 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Nonconstitutional error requires reversal only when the error a ffected a party’s substantial rights.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.2(b). Error that has a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict affects a substantial right. Coble v. State , 330 S.W.3d 253, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Here, the complained-of testim ony was that appellant sent the text messages to MD. But this was also established through MD’s testimony without object ion. Specifically, MD testified:
P ROSECUTOR : All right. And so you had talked about the defendant giving y ou gifts, did he ever send you messages? MD : Yes.

. . . P ROSECUTOR : Okay. And so when he — what would he send you on your phone? MD : He would send me text messages saying that he loved me. Send me pictures of, like, flowers or, like — I gue ss, a GIF which says, I love you.

. . . P ROSECUTOR : And so he would send you these messages. Did any of your sist ers ever see those messages? MD : Yes. P ROSECUTOR : What sisters saw some of those messages that the defendant se nt you? MD : My sister Edith and my sister Alma. “Erroneously admitting evidence ‘will not result in reversal w hen other such evidence was received without objection, either before or after the complain ed-of ruling.” Coble , 330 S.W.3d at
282. This holds true even when the evidence is not the same but i s very similar or substantially the same evidence. Estrada v. State , 313 S.W.3d 274, 302 n. 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (very similar evidence admitted); Mayes v. State , 816 S.W.2d 79, 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (substantially the same evidence admitted). Therefore, even if the evidence was improperly admitted through Alma, we cannot conclude that appellant suffer ed harm.–4– Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 171180F.U05 We resolve appellant’s sole issu e against him and affirm the tr ial court’s judgment.

/Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ROLMAN GARCIA-RAMIREZ, Appellant
No. 05-17-01180-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1675687-M. Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Molberg and Rei chek participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of t his date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered February 25, 2019