1 ... See Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 213- CR
R AM ON H E R NAN DE Z AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 89TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F W I CH I TA CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I nt r oduc t i on A ppel l antRam on H er nand ez a p p e a l s hi s t w o sent ences oft en year s’ c o n fi n e m e n t, p lu s t w o $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 fi n e s, i m p o se d b ya j u ry fo l l o w i n g h i s g u i l ty p l e a s a n d co n v i c ti o n s fo r t w o co u n ts o f de a d l yco n d u c t. I n h i s s o l ep o i n t, a p p e l l a n t c o n te n d sth a t th e tri a l c o u rt e rre d w h e n i t re fu s e d t o a d m i t a p p e l l a n t’s2

vol untary vi deotaped conf essi on to s i xext r aneou s of f enses i nt o evi dence at p u n i s h m e n t. B e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t fa i l e d t o p re s e rv eh i ss o l ec o m p l a i n t, w ea ffir m . B a c k g rou n d F a c ts O n August10, 200 7, app el l ant and t w o c om pan i onsdr ovet o— and s hot a . 40 cal i berp i st ol an d a sho t gun at— t w o r esi dences i n W i chi t a Fal l s, Texas. I n O c to b e r 2 0 0 7 , th e S tate i n d i c ted a p p e l l a n t o n tw o c o u n ts o f de a d l yco n d u c t. Si x m ont hsaft ert he of f ens e, i n Febr uary 20 08, appel l ant , w hi l e i n j ai l aw ai t i ng t r i al , co nt ac t ed t he FBI w i t ho ut t he adv i ceors upe rvi si on ofco uns el . I n a vi deotaped di scussi on w i t h S peci al A gent C har l es Jones, appel l antconf essed t o hi s i nvol vem enti n t he dr i ve- by shoo t i ngs on A ugu st1 0, 2 00 7, an d si x ot her d r i v e - b y s h o o t i n g s i n No v e m b e r 20 06 . Ag e n t J o n e s d i d n o t p r o m i se an y l e n i e n c yi n retu rn fo r ap p e l l a n t’ s c o o p e rati o n . F o l l o w in g t h ed i sc u ss i o n w i th A g e n t J o n e s, th e S tate ind i c ted a p p e l l a n t o n s i xn e w c o u n ts o f de a d l yco n d u c t. In a h e a r in g o u t s id e t h e ju ry ’s p r e s e n c e , a p p e lla n ta r g u e d t h a th es h o u ld b e a b l e t o q u e s t io n A g e n tJ o n e sa b o u tt h ec ir c u m s t a n c e ss u r r o u n d in g h is confes si on. A tt hatt i m e, appel l ant ’ s counsel speci f i cal l y st at ed t hatt hey had
n o p l a n sto i n tro d u c e th e v i d e o ta p e d s ta te m e n t; i n s te a d , th e yw e rem o re i nt er est ed i n m i t i gat i ng puni shm ent by s how i ng t hat appel l ant h a d att em pt ed t o t ak e r es pons i bi l i t y f orhi s ac t i ons . The St at e o bj ec t ed on t he gr ound t hatt he st at em entw as sel f
- servi ng hear say. A ppel l ant ’ s counsel r espond ed as f ol l ow s:3 A s t o of f er i ng t he st at em entof th e p r oof oft he evi dence, w e’ r e n otw ant i ng t o go i nt o t hat . W e j us tm er el y w antt o ha ve hi m ad m i tt o t he f ac tt hathew ascont ac t ed by [ app el l ant ] ab se nt c o u n s e l, d id in f a c tv o lu n t a r ilyg o t o h im a n d d id in f a c tt a lkt o h im r egar di ng t hese i ssues and conf ess t o t hese cr i m es r i ght her e.

. . . . So al l w e w ou l d a s ki st ha tw eb ea l l ow e d t o a s kt heF BI age ntw het herornott her e w asa m ee t i ng be t w ee n t he t w o a nd w h e t h e ro rn o th e d id v o lu n t a r ilyc o m ein , w h e t h e ro rn o th ed id ma k e a c o n f e s s i o n t o h i m. The t r i alco urts us t ai ned t he St at e’ s obj ec t i on. Im m e d i a te l yth e re a fte r, th etri a l c o u rt h e a rd a rg u m e n t o n th eS ta te ’s M ot i on of N ot i ce of I nt ent t o I nt r odu ce Ext r aneou s O f f enses. A ppel l antar gued t hati ft he St at e i nt end ed t o i nt r oduc e e vi den ceoft he ext r ane ousdr i ve- by sh oot i ngs , t hen t hat“ w oul d open u p t he doort o t he con f es si on. ” I n t he con t extofar gui ng w het hert he St at e w oul d i nt r oduc e e vi den cer el at ed t o t he e x tr a n e o u s o ffen se s, ap p e l l a n t ag a i n co n ten d e d tha t he sh o u l d b eall o w e d to q u e s ti o n th e F B I ag e n t a n d , i n a d d it io n , “ h a v eth ec o n fe s s i o n b ro u g h t i n .” H o w e v e r, th e tri a l c o u rt n e v e r ru l e d o n t h e m a tte r, i n s te a d , st a ti n g , “I c a n ’t ans w ert hatnow . . . . I t ’ s [ t he age nt ’ s] t es t i m ony t hatw e a r e go i ng t o ha ve t o he aran d e nt eri nt o orI can’ tr ea l l y m ak e a nyt hi ng ot hert han s om e k i nd of an adv i so ry r ul i ng. ” The St at e t hen as ke d t he t r i alcourtt o gr antan or alm ot i on i n l i m i n e t h a ti ft h e d e f e n s e c a l l e d Ag e n tJ o n e s , c o u n s e l w o u l d a p p r o a c h t he4

bench , and t he t r i al courtw oul d h o l d a hear i ng ou t si de t he j ur y’ s pr esence bef or e t he t r i alco urtm adei t s r ul i ng. The t r i al c ou rtg r ant ed t he m ot i on, an d a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t o bj e c t. I n ste a d o f ca l l in g A g e n t Jo n e s, h o w e v e r, ap p e l l a n t w a i v e d h i s F i fth A m end m entpr i vi l egeag ai ns ts el f
- i ncr i m i nat i on a nd t es t i f i ed abo utt he confes si on; t he S t at e cr oss- exam i ned hi m about t he si x unad j udi cat ed char ges ofde adl y c onduc t , w hi ch app el l antad m i tt ed bei ng i nvol ved w i t h. The j ury a ss es se d a ppe l l ant ’ s puni sh m entatt en yea r s’ conf i nem ent , pl us a $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 fi n e , o n e a c h o f th e tw o c o u n tso f d e a d l yc o n d u c t ; t h e t r ia l c o u rt sent enced app el l antaccordingl y and or der ed t he sent ences t o be served con cur r ent l y. C om pl ai ntN otPr eserved I n hi s sol e poi nt , appel l antassert s t hat hi s sent ences shoul d be r ever sed because t he t r i al co urtab used i t s di scr et i on by r ef usi ng t o adm i tt he vi deotaped confes si on. H ow ever , appel l antf ai l ed t o pr eserve t hi s com pl ai ntf orr evi ew . S t andar d ofRev i ew T o p res e rve a co m p l a i n t fo r o u r rev i e w , a p a rt ym u st h a v ep res e n ted to t h e t ri a l c o u rt a ti m e l yre q u e s t, o bj e c ti o n , o r m o ti o n th a t s ta te sth es p e c if ic gr oundsf ort he des i r ed r ul i ng i f t heyar e n otap par entf r om t he con t extoft he re q u e s t, o bj e c ti o n , o r m o ti o n . T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Mo sleyv. S tate , 9835

S .W .2 d 2 4 9 , 2 6 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), c ert. deni e d , 526 U. S. 107 0 ( 199 9) . Fu rt her , t he t r i alcourtm us thave r ul ed on t he r equ es t , obj ec t i on, orm ot i on, ei t herex pr es sl y ori m pl i ci t l y, ort he com pl ai ni ng p art y m us tha ve o bj e c te d t o t h e t ri a lc o u rt’sre fu s a l t o ru l e . T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(2 ); Mendez
v. S tate , 138 S. W . 3d 334 , 341 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 200 4) . Pr es ervat i on ofer r or i s a s ys t em i c r equ i r em entt ha tthi s cou rts houl d r evi ew on i t s ow n m ot i on. A rchie v. State, 2 2 1 S .W .3 d 6 9 5 , 6 9 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Jones v. State, 9 4 2 S .W .2 d 1 , 2 n .1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). A n a ly s is A ppel l anti ni t i al l y contended i n t he t r i al courtt hathe w as noti nt er est ed i n adm i tt i ng t he confes si on i t sel f ; i nst ead, h e w ant ed t o quest i on A gent Jones a b o u tt h e c ir c u m s t a n c e ss u r r o u n d in g a p p e lla n t ’s v o lu n t a ryc o n f e s s io n . B u tt h is i s notappel l ant ’ s com pl ai nton appeal . To be pr eserved, a com pl ai nton appeal
m us tco m portw i t h t he com pl ai ntm adei n t he t r i alco urtori ti s f orf ei t ed. Hei del b ergv. S tate , 1 4 4S .W .3 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ); Bel l v. S tate , 9 3 8 S .W .2 d 3 5 , 5 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 827 (1 9 9 7 ); Reza cv. S tate , 782 S . W . 2d 869, 870 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1990 ) . The o n lyt im e a p p e lla n t a p p e a r e d t o a s kt h et r ia l c o u rtt o a d m itt h ec o n f e s s io n it s e lf
w a sw h e n h e w a so bje c t i n g t o t h eS t a t e ’s o f f e r in g e v id e n c eo ft h eo t h e rs ix dr i ve- bys ; hes t at ed t hati ft he St at e w as goi ng t o i nt r oduc e s uch ev i den ce , he6

sh oul d t hen beal l ow ed t o “ hav e t he con f es si on br oughti n. ” Butap pel l ant n e v e r ob tai n e d a ru l i n g ; th u s, the co m p l a i n t w a s n o t pre se rve d for a p p e l l a te re v i e w . SeeT e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(2 ); T e x . R . E v i d . 1 0 3 (a ); G uti er rezv. S tate , 3 6 S .W .3 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 0

– 1 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); D a rtyv. S tate , 709 S .W .2 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ). W eo v e rr u l eap p e l l a n t’ s s o l ep o i n t. C onc l us i on H a v in g d e te rm i n e d th a t a p p e l l a n t’s s o l e p o i n t w a s n o t p re s e rv e d , w e a ffi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON J U S T I C E PA N EL: LI V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d GA RD N ER, JJ. D A U PH I N O T, J. co ncu r s w i t houtopi ni on. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J ul y 23, 2009