NO. 07-06 -039 4-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER1, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JOHN CEDRIC W YATT , SR., APP ELL ANT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 5 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF NA CO GD OC HE S CO UNT Y; TH NO. F140 652 006 ; HON. CAMPBELL COX II, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. OPIN ION App ellantJohn Cedric W y att, Sr. appe als f rom h is convi ction by jury of the of fense of posse ssion of

cocaine and his resulting probat ed se nte nce. Via his sole pointof error, app ellantconte nds th at article 36 .02 of the T exas Code of

Cri min al Proced ure is uncon sti tuti onal and the tr ial courtthus er re d i n rely ing on i t t o per mit the S tate to reopenThe St ate’ s b ri ef does not address preser v ati on of er ro r. H ow ev er , preser v ati on 1 of error i s a sy stem ic req uirem entthatmustbe revi ewed bythe cou rts of app eals re g ardle ss w hether

the is sue is rais ed by

the par ti es. Haley v. State, 173 S.W .3d 5 10, 5 15 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2005) , citi ng M ar ti nez v. Sta te, 22 S.W .3d 504 , 507 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 0). See Te x . Health & S afety Cod e Ann
. § 481 .11 5(c) (Ve rnon 2 003 ). T his is a third 2 degree felon y

pun ishab le by imp risonm entin t he institut iona l div ision for any term notmore than ten y ears o r les s t han tw o y ears a nd a fine of not more than $10,000

. Tex . Pe nal Code Ann. § 12.3 4 (Verno n 20 03). 2 it s e v ide nce to prov e v enue. Fi ndi ng appel lan t’ s poi nt of er ro r has not b een preser v ed for ou r rev i ew , w e affi r m. 1 By a Jun e 20 06 ind ictme nt, a p p ellantw as cha rg ed wi th inte ntion ally or know ingly posse ssing cocaine in an am oun t of one g ram b ut less tha n four grams. The case 2 proceed ed to a tr ial before a jur y follo w ing his ple a of no t g uil ty
. Ev ide nce sh o wed that police foun d 3.8 g rams o f crack cocaine in a clo set of a resid ence , and t hatapp ellanttold off i c e rs h e h i d t h e c o c a i n e t h e r e . A p p e l l a n tt e s t i fi e d a tt r i a l , d e n y i n g k n o w l e d g e o f t he coc ain e i n the resi dence
. He admit ted he confessed to officers h e pos ses sed the c ocai ne but t est ified he d id so out o f fear of another

person. After the S tate re ste d, ap pel lan t mov ed for an ins tr uct ed v erdic t becau se the S tate had notpresent ed ev ide nce of v enue. The St ate mov ed to reopen i ts cas e to do s o. After tak ing a reces s t o rev iew ca se law , t he tr ial co urt g ra nted the S tate’s moti on ov er appel lan t’ s o bje cti on. The Stat e then recal led the inv est ig ator and est abl is hed the ev ents occ ur re d i n Nac og doche s Cou nty
. Thereafter , t he j ur y found appel lan t g uil ty

as ch arg ed in the i ndi ctme n t a n d asses sed puni shmentat confine ment for a ter m of f iv e y ears. AsT he Court of Criminal App eals also long has held that it is w ithin the tria l c o u rt ’s 3 dis creti on to per mit a par ty , i ncl udi ng the Stat e, to reopen it s cas e to prov e v enue. See, e.g., C ox v. State, 494 S.W .2d 574, 575 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1973) (n ot an abus e of di sc re ti on to pe rmit the State to reop en for the p urpo se of provi ng v enu e after bot h sides had reste d); Ma rt in v. State, 271 S.W .2d 279, 280 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1954) ( sta tute author iz ed a cour t t o per mit the S tate to r e o pen after a mot ion for i nst ru cte d v erdic t and after the charg e had bee n prese nte d to th e accu sed). 3 re commended by

the jur y , t he tr ial co u rt p robated the s entenc e, pl aci ng appel lan t on communi ty

su per v is ion for a ter m of f iv e y ears. This appeal foll ow ed. Appel lan t c ontends , t hroug h hi s a ppel lat e i ss ue, t hat the tri al cour t’ s a ppl ic ati on of article 36. 02 o f

the T exas Cod e of

Crimin al Proced ure to perm it reo pen ing of the St ate ’s cas e viol ated his r ig ht t o due proces s o f law g uaranteed him throug h the F our teent h Amendment to t he U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on. Hi s a rg ument reli es pr imar il y on t he sta tements of the C our t of C ri minal Ap peal s i n Peek v. Sta te thatso me l ang uag e of the sta tute is “ inh ere n tl y vagu e ” and ambi g uous. Peek v. Sta te, 106 S.W .3d 7 2, 78 (T e x.Cri m .A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). Afte r re view of th e rec o rd , we co n clu d e th a t a p p e lla n t’ s ch a lle n ge to th e con stitutio nality of article 36.0 2 is not prop erly before us. Ar ti c l e 36 .0 2 s ta te s t ha t th e “ c ou rt s ha l l al l ow te s ti mo ny to b e i nt rod uc ed a t an y t i me before t he a rg ument of a c ause is co ncl uded, if i t app ears t hat i t i s n eces sar y to a due ad mi n i s t ra t i o n o f j u s t i c e . ” Te x . C o d e C r i m. P ro c . A n n . a rt
. 3 6

. 0 2 ( V e r n o n 2007)

. The Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls has noted that the arti cl e, alth oug h notex press ly so l imi ted, “h as generally bee n app lied in tho se cases w here a party has moved to ‘ reop en’ the evidence af ter he h as reste d o r c lo s e d a ttrial.” Love v. State , 861 S.W .2d 8 99, 9 03 n. 4 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 93). 34

Challen ges to t h e c o n s t itution ality of a statu te ta ke tw o forms: the stat ute is uncon sti tuti onal as i t w as appl ied to the defendant, or the stat ute is unc onst it uti onal on i ts face. Bar

nett v. State, 201 S.W .3d 2 31, 2 32 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 20 06, n o pet .) , citi ng Fluel len v. Sta te, 104 S.W .3d 1 52, 1 67 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2003, no pet.) . As w e read app ellant ’s arg um ent , he cont end s a rticle 3 6.0 2 is u ncon stitutio nal as ap plied to him. Su ch a c ontent ion may

not be rais ed for the first ti me on ap peal , but m ustf irst be rai sed in the tr ial co urt. Bar

nett, 201 S.W .3d a t 232 , citi ng C ur ry v. Sta te, 910 S.W .2d 49 0 , 4 96 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1995)

. As noted, appel lan t obj ect ed to the Stat e reopeni ng i ts cas e to prov e v enue. C ounse l sta ted, “I ’d jus t l ik e to o bject to al low ing the Stat e to re open, and the n I w i l l r e q u e s t a r u n n i n g o bj e c t i o n t o a n y t e s t i mo n y . ” Th e c o u rt g ra n t e d hi s r unni ng obj ect ion
. The obj ect ion did not asser t the unconst it uti onal appli cat ion of arti cl e 36. 02, a nd so did not preser

v e tha t c ontent ion for a ppel lat e rev iew
. See Wil son v. State, 71 S .W .3d 346, 349 ( Te x.Cri m .App. 2002) ; Rez ac v. State, 782 S.W .2d 8 69, 8 70 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 199 0) (objectio n on one legal theory w ill notsupp ort poin t of error on dif

feren t the ory ). Our conc lus ion is the same i f w e read app ell ant’ s b ri ef to as ser t t hat a rt ic le 36.02 is uncon stitutio nal on its face. Case law provi des th at a de fend antis not required to raise in the t ri al cour

t a cons ti tuti onal ch all eng e tha t t he s tatut e on w hic h hi s conv ic ti on i s b ased is faci all y i nv ali d, but mayrai se suc h a chal len g e for the first ti me on ap peal
. Bar nett, 201 S.W .3d a t 232 , citi

ng Ga rcia v. State, 887 S.W .2d 8 46, 8 6 1 ( T e x .C ri m.App. 1994) , cer t. denied, 514 U .S. 1005, 115 S. Ct

. 1317, 131 L. Ed.2d 198 ( 1995)

. Appel lan t’ s c onv ic ti on is based on § 48 1.1 15(c) of the Health & Safety C ode , noton article 36 .02 , w hich simp ly address es procedu re for t he ta ki ng of tes ti mony at tr ial
. Appel lan t’ s c onst it uti onal5

challen ge to the p roced ural statu te m ust f irst have been raised at trial, eve n i f h e is cont endi ng i t i s u ncons ti tuti onal on i ts face. See Lashe r v. State, 202 S.W .3d 2 92, 2 95 (Tex .App. –W aco 2 006, pet. re f’d) ; Ba rn ett, 201 S.W .3d a t 232 ; Mc Gowan v . St ate , 938 S.W .2d 7 32, 7 39 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 1996) ( op. o n reh’ g ), aff’ d on o ther th gr ounds, Weightm an v

. St ate, 975 S.W .2d 6 21 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1998) ; W ebb v. State, 899 S.W .2d 8 14, 8 18 ( Tex .App. –W aco 1995, pet. re f’d) ( all di sc uss ing appl ic a ti o n o f error prese rv ation rules to const itution al challen ges). Havi ng co nclud ed app ellant ’s p oint of e rror w as notp reserved for o u r re vie w, we ov er ru le itand aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Publ is h.