### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 08
- 00152
- CR JOHN WELLS DULANEY , Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. 34,755

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Appellant John Wells Du laney guilty of eight counts of possession of child pornography (counts 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19)

. The trial court assessed his punishment at six years’ imprisonment for count 1 and ten years’ imprisonment for each of counts 2, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19. The court then suspended the ten

- year sentences and placed Dulaney on commun ity supervision for ten years. In his first point, Dulaney contends that the trial court erred in permitting the State to introduce inadmissible hearsay evidence over his hearsay and confrontationDulaney v. State Page 2

objections before the jury during the guilt

- innocence phase of the trial. Kent Head, a criminal investigator for the Hill County Sheriff’s Department, testified that Dulaney’s daughter Jennifer, her boyfriend, and her younger br other Brandon came to the sheriff’s department with several computer disks that they had discovered. Head testified that they told him the computer disks had been left with an old computer that Dulaney had given Brandon to play computer games

. Head state d that Brandon found the disks and thought they were computer games but soon discovered that they contained child pornography. Dulaney objected to Head’s testimony as hearsay. The trial court sustained the objection in part and overruled it in part. The trial judge stated that he
would allow Head “to state the basis of his investigation” but would not admit the testimony “ for the truth of the matter therein stated .” Dulaney’s first issue fails for two reasons. First, Dulaney has not preserve d his
Confro ntation Clause complaints because he did not object on that basis. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 33.1(a); Paredes v. State , 129 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (trial objection on hearsay grounds failed to preserve error on Confrontation Clause grounds); Wri

ght v. State , 28 S.W.3d 526, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (Confrontation Clause argument waived by failing to object on that basis). Second , assuming without deciding that the admission of the testimony was error, it was cumulative of other
evidence and thu s harmless. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.2 ; Anderson v. State , 717 S.W.2d 622, 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)

. Brandon tes tified as follows: Dulaney lived with him, his sister Jennifer , he r boyfriend, and several children un til a family disagreement arose. Dulane y left afterDulaney v. State Page 3

the disagreement , taking some of his “computer stuff” with him but leaving behind one computer that he said Bran don could have to play games. A fter playing games on the computer for several hours, Brandon began looking at Dulaney’s other disk s. He found some disks labeled “Fun” and thought they contained games or movies, but , when he opened one of the files on the disk, he discovered it was a pornographic video of a
child. He then showed the disks to Jennifer’s boyfriend, who showed them to Jennifer. Jennifer also testified that Dulaney had left a computer for Brandon to use ; Brandon found a disk , and she, her boyfriend, and Brandon viewed the disk , which contained child pornography ; Brandon then retrieved the remainder of the disks that
Dula ney had left , and they also contained child pornography. Jennifer’s boyfriend
testified that Brandon brought him some disks and told him that he needed to see what was on them; the disks contained a lot of pornography and some child pornography;
and he th en showed Jennifer what was on the disks. Dulaney’s first point is thus
overruled. In his second point, Dulaney argues that the trial court erred in entering a cumulation order predetermining sentenc ing upon revocation of community supervision. The trial court’s judgment state s that, if revoked, the ten

- year sentences for
counts 2 and 13 shall run consecutively to each other and to t he six

- year sentence for
count 1 and that the ten

- year sentences for counts 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19 will run concurrently wit h counts 1, 2 and 13.
We find that Dulaney’s argument is premature. The predetermined sentence may never actually be imposed because Dulaney may successfully complete hisDulaney v. State Page 4

community supervision. Dulaney’s argument is thus not ripe for review until the tri al court revokes community supervision and imposes the sentences. We ov errule Dulaney’s second point. In his third point, Dula ney contends that he was denied the double jeopardy protection afforded by both the Texas and United States Constitution s under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. More specifically, h e argues that the only evidentiary
issue in th e case was whether he possessed the child pornography , and therefore, because the possession evidence was the same for each pornographic image, his
acqu ittal on thirteen of the twenty

- one counts r equires acqui ttal on the other eight

counts. “[C]ollateral estoppel is a component of federal constitutional double jeopardy jurisprudence. . . .” Reynolds v. State , 4 S.W.3d 13, 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); acco rd
Ladner v. State , 780 S.W.2d 247, 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Collateral estoppel is the principle that “when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any
future lawsuit.” Ashe v. Swenson , 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). Collateral estoppel, however, does not apply to the present case. The Ashe
doctrine of collateral estoppel only applies where there are two trials, and not where a single trial involves multiple counts. Hite v. State , 650 S.W.2d 778, 784 n.7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Ward v. State , 938 S.W.2d 525, 528 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 1997, pet. ref’d). Dulaney’s argument instead is more accurately described as a complain t about an inconsistent verdict. However, this argument also fails.Dulaney v. State Page 5

In Dunn v. United States , 284 U.S. 390, 393

- 94, 52 S.Ct. 189, 190

- 91, 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932), the Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one
count could not attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jury’s verdict of acquittal on another count. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Dunn decision in
United States v. Powell , 469 U.S. 57, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984). In Powell , the
Co urt stated , “[W]here truly inconsistent verdicts have been reached, ‘[t]he most that can be said ... is that the verdict shows that either in the acquittal or the conviction the jury did not speak their real conclusions, but that does not show that they were not convinced of the defendant’s guilt.’” Id. at 64

- 65, 105 S.Ct. at 476 (quoting Dunn , 284 U.S. at 393, 52 S.Ct. at 190). Thus, even if an inconsistent verdict is shown by the jury’s verdict in this case, no error has been shown. 1 Dulaney’s third poin t is overruled. Having overruled all of Dulaney’s points, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna , and Justice Davis Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed February 10, 2010 Do not p ublish [C R 25 ]

1 To the extent Dulaney also contends in his third point that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, the complaint is inadequately briefed and presents nothing for review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1 (h), (i).