### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00747-CR
Jeff rey Walter Stefanof f, Appel lant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 97-0418, HO NORABLE ROB ERT T. PFEUFFER, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury co nvicte d ap pellant Jeffre y Walter St efano ff of po sses sing f our ounc es or m

ore butl ess than f i ve pounds of

mari hua na . SeeTe x . H ea

l th & Sa f ety Code Ann. § 481.12 1 (West Supp. 2002)
. The t rial co ur t sent ence d him to one yea r’ s c onf i ne men t, prob ate d f

ortwo years, and i

mposed
a $2, 500 fine, $1 ,5 00 be ing pr oba t ed. As a condi tion of appel

la nt’s probation, the trial

court ordered him to enter the substanc e abuse f el ony pun is hm ent program and, prior t o entry i nto such pr o gr am, required appella nt to ser v e se ven da y s i n j ail as a detoxi f i cation peri od. By

si x poi nts of error, app ellant ch alle ng es his co nvictio n and sentence . In one counterpoint, the Stat e chal le nges the tri al
cou rt ’s subm

issi on of appellant’s necessi

ty defense to the j ury . We affirm the t rial co ur t ’s judg ment and sen tence as m

odif ie d.2 BACK GROUND FACTS While fl yi ng over appellant’s pr ope rty in a helicop t er dur ing a “do mest ic marijuana
er adica t ion” o pe r at io n, po lice dis co ve r ed ap pe ll ant gr ow ing marihua na. Afte r o bt aining and
exec ut inga se ar ch w ar r an t , po li ce re cove red f i f teen mari hua na pl an ts be l ongi ng to appel

l an t. A search of his residence r ev ea le d no ot her dr ug p ar aphe rna lia or co nt ra band. The marihua na confi scated from appellant weighed 2.16 pou nds.

Appe llantsti

pul ate d to c om

m i tti ng the of f en se of pos se ss i on of

ma rij uana of f

our ounces or more

but l ess than f i ve pounds. See Tex. Heal

th & Saf ety Code Ann. § 481 .1 21. Pu rsu ant to Pena l Cod e se ct ion 9 .2 2, app ellant ass erted the def en se of ne ces si ty. See Tex . Pen . Code A nn . § 9.22 (West 1994) . Appell ant clai med that, as a result o f h

is post-t raumatic stress dis orde r, it was
ne ces sary f or h i m to pos se ss

an d s moke mari h ua n a to co nt ain t he ad ve r se symp t o ms as soc i ate d w i th his diso rd er . T he St at e o bject ed t o a ppe llant’s u se o f the nece ssit y defense . T he trial court, howe

ver, overruled t he S t at e’ s o bje ct io ns an d s ub mit t ed t he iss ue t o t he jury. The jury fou nd ap pe llan t gu ilt y. At app ellant’ s elect ion, the trial court assess ed

hi s pun i sh men t. A ppe l l an t ap pe als b oth h

i s c onv i cti on and sen tence. DISCUSSI ON By his f i rs t poi nt of erro r, a ppellant chall

enges t he factual suffi

ciency of the S tat e’s evi dence to ove

rcom e h i s n ec es si ty de f en se . The Sta

te re sp onds b

y as serti ng one cou nte rpoi nt of error, con ten di ng tha t the tri al cou rt com m i tted e rror by instr uct ingth e j ur

y on appe l l an t’s n ec es si ty3

defen se. Be fo re we pa ss up o n t he fa ct ua l su ff iciency of the St ate ’s evidence to rebut appellant’s
n ec es si ty defense, we f

irst de t er mine wh et he rap pe llan t wa s e nt it led t o a ju ry ins t ruc t io n o n ne ce ss it y. A de f en da n t i s g en eral l y en ti tl ed to a j ury i ns tructi on on

every cl ai me d defen

si ve i ssue so long a s the evidence a dduc ed at trial i s suf f i ci en t to rais e each

elem en t of the def en se. See Grange r v. State , 3 S.W.3d36, 38 ( Tex . Cri m . App. 1999 ); Hamel v. St ate , 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (T ex. Crim

. App. 1996). In determi

ni ng whether

evidence raises a

de fe ns e, ne it he rt he cr ed ibilit y, source, or s tre n gth

of the ev i den ce is m aterial
. Hamel , 9 16 S .W. 2d a t 493 (st at ingthat “an accus ed has t he r ight t o a n instr uct ion o n any defens ive issue r aised by the evi dence, wh

ether that evide

nce i s w ea k or strong, uni

mpe ached or contradicted, and regardless of wh at the tr ia l c ourt ma

y or m ay not t hink abo ut t he cr edibility of t he defen se” ); Muniz v. Sta te , 85 1 S
. W. 2d 23 8, 25 4 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1993)( “The evi

dence wh ic h rai ses the i ssue m

ay be ei ther stro ng, weak, contradicted, uni mpe ached, or unb el

i ev ab l e.”). If

ev ide nc e is su ch t ha t a r at io na l jur o rco uld ac ce pt it as su ffi cient to prove a def en si ve elem en t, then i t is sai d to “rai se” that el em en t. See 43 Ge o r ge E . Dix & R obert O. Daws on, Texas Pra ctice: Crimi nal Practice and Procedure § 36 .4 7 ( 2d e d. 200 1) . T he de fen da nt ’s t es t imo ny by it se lf is su f f i ci en t to raise a d ef en si ve i ss uereq ui ri ng an i ns tructi on in the j ury ch ar ge , pa r t icu lar ly whe n t he de fen da nt mak es a p r o pe ran d t imely reques t for such a ch

arge. Hayesv. State , 7 28 S .W. 2d 8 04, 807 (T ex. Cr i m . A pp . 19 87 ). It i s on

l y wh en th e ev i den ce

f ai l s to raiseevery

el em en t of a def ensi v e iss ue th at a trial court ma y ref use to grant an instruction requested b y th e def en da n t. See Muniz, 851 S.W.2dat 254 . O n app eal, evidenc e in sup po rt of t he de fensive is sue is review ed in t he light most fa vorabl e to the de f

en se. Shafer

v. State , 919 S.W.2d 885, 886 (Tex . App.—F ort Worth 19 96, pet. ref ’d).1 Dr. Hochman did n ot begi n treating appe ll

ant until after the State indi

cted app ellan t fo r ma rih uana possess ion on Oc

to ber 9, 1997. 4 Ne ce ss i ty is a statut ory defense that exonerates a perso n’s oth er wise i l l eg al con du ct. See Te x. Pe n. Co de Ann. § 9 .2 2. Co ndu ct is jus t ified b y nec es sit y if: (1) t he ac tor r ea son

ab l y b el i ev es th e c on du ct is imme dia t ely ne ce ss ar y t o av o id imminen t ha r m; (2) t he des irability andurg en cy of avo iding t he har m clearly ou t weigh, acc or ding to ordinary

standards of

re aso nableness , t he har m sou ght t o be pr event ed by t he law pr os cr ibing the co nduc t ; and (3) a l eg i sl ati ve pur pos e to e xc l

ude the j us ti f i ca ti on cl ai me d for the conduct does not otherwi se p l ai

nl y appe ar. Id. The defend ant has t he initial burd en o f pro duc ing evidenc e r ega rd ing t he nec essit y defense . T ex. Pen. Code A

nn . § 2. 03( c) t he de fendant add uce s evide nce, re gar dless o f sou rc e and st re ngt h, r aising
ev ery el em ent of the def

ense, then the b urden sh if

ts to the Stat e to disprove the def ense b ey ond a
reas onab l e doubt. Id. § 2. 03( d); Thomas v . State , 678 S.W .2d 82, 8 4 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1984 ). The Stat e contends t hat, because appe l l an t f ai l ed to pr ese nt any evidenc e r ega rd ing his pos se ss i on of

mari hu an a on the da y of th e of f ense , a pp el l an t f ai l ed to mee t hi

s i ni ti al bu rde n of pr od ucing evi

dence t o r ais e t he “immed iat ely ne ce ss ar y t o av o id imm inent ha rm” element . T ex. Pen. Code An n. § 9.22(1). Appell

ant argues tha

t hi s te sti mony an d that of his treati ng p sy chi atri st, Dr. Joel Ho chman, 1 regardin

g appella nt’s m edi cal need to use mari

huan a to co ntrol rage, de pressi on,2 Dr. H oc hman was t he first per so n to diagnoseap pe llant as su ffer ing fr o m po st - t r au mat ic

stress di sorder. The record in dic ates that appell

ant devel oped post -traumatic stress disorder aft er he authorized

t h e te r minat io n o f life s up po r t fo rhis w ife w ho wa s s ev er ely inju r ed in a mo t o r cyc le ac ci den t. 3 A cc ordi

n g to a pp el l an t, [t ]he St at e wa s re quir ed t o d ispro ve beyo nd a r eas ona ble do ubt two pr on gs o f the nece ssit y justificat ion: (1) that Stef

anoff reas onab l y be l i ev ed h

i s con duct wa s i m medi atel y ne ces sary to av o id imm inent ha rm; and (2) that t he de sirability and ur genc y of avo iding t he har m clearly ou t weigh, acc or ding to ordi n ar y sta n da rd s of re as on ab l en

es s, th e h ar m sou gh t to be pr event ed by t he mari juan a laws. T his ar gu men t is w it ho ut mer it be ca us e ( i) i t er ron eou sl y cr ea tes a c on j un cti v e b urden on th e S tate to dis pr o ve ea ch ele men t o f t he ne ce ss it y de fen se an d ( ii) it inc o rr ec t ly pr esu mes t hat app ellant me t hi s i ni tial burden of

putt in g forth some ev

ide nce to support hi s def

ense. 5 an xie t y, and nervousness asso c i ated wi th appel l an t’s post-traum

ati c stres s disorder, 2 sat isfy the im mi nen t harm requi

remen t o f s ection 9.22. 3 Sec ti on 9. 22 (1 ) r eq uir es t he d efe nda nt t o firs t br ing fo rth evi de nc e o f a s pe cific imm inent harm . Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 9. 22( 1); Johnso n v. State , 65 0 S
. W. 2d 41 4, 41 6 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 19 83 )
. “H ar m” mea ns an y thi ng rea son ab l y reg ard ed asl oss , disadvan

tag e, or injury, including ha rm to another pers on i

n w hose wel f are the pers on af

f ected i s i ntere sted. T ex . Pen . Co de Ann. § 1.07(a )(25). “Im

mi nen t” means somethi

ng that is im me dia te, somethin

g that is goi

ng to happen
n ow. See Smith v. Stat

e , 87 4 S .W .2d

26 9, 2 72 -7 3 ( Te x . A

pp .—H ouston

[1 4th Dist. ] 1 99 4, p et. ref ’d). Rea ding thes e def

i ni tions togethe

r, im mi nen t harm contem

pla tes a reaction to a circum

stance6

t hat must be t he r es ult of a “s pli t-second decis ion [m

ade] without tim

e to co nsi der the law .” Id. at 273. Appe llantasserts his e vi dence establi shes “that [post- traumatic s

tress disorder] has
a v ar iet y o f symp t o ms, so me sudden an d severe, so that possession of m arij uana at al

l ti me s could be ne ce ss ar y t o av o id t he m. ” ( E mph as is a dd ed
. ) Bu t mo r e t ha n a ge ne r aliz ed fea ro f ha r m i s required to rai se the i ssue of

i m m i nent harm . Brazelt

on v. State , 9 47 S .W. 2d 6 44, 648 (T ex. App.—Fort Wort h 1997, no p et .) . T he bulk o f app ellant’ s evide nce c onc er ns t est imony relat ingto appellant’s di

ag n osi s a n d tr ea tmen t after he wa s c ha r ge d w it h m

ar ihu an a p o ss es sio n. T he o nly t est imony co nc er ning t he ev en t s le ad ing up t o ap pe llant ’s ind ict men t ca me fr o m ap pe llant
. And wh ile
we recogniz e that a defe

ndan t’s testim ony a lone ma y b e suf fi ci ent to suppo rt a necessi

ty def ense, see Hayes , 728 S.W.2d at 807, it must actuall y rai se the def ensi ve i ssue b efore an

i ns tructi on i s prope r, see Granger

, 3 S.W.3d at 38. A

ppel l ant testi fi ed as f oll ows regardi

ng i m m i nen t harm : ( i) he once threw a c up o f ho t co ffee o n his co lleg e p r o fes so r ; ( ii) he be ca me a ng ry at his so n and fea re d hit t ing him; and (i

ii ) he had a g en eral b el i ef th at i t wa s n ec es sa ry f or h i m to smo ke mar ihu an a t o co nt r o l his po st - t r au mat ic stres s disord er sym pt oms, including su icidal tho ught s, flashba ck, dep re ssio n, r age , a nd night mares . We fi

nd, however, that none of thi s testim ony produces ev

ide nceof any

conduct that
wou l d l ead a re as on ab l e p er son

to b el i ev e a sp ec i f i c h ar m wa s i m m i n en t. Even if appellant pr op er ly raised t he element of immi ne nt h ar m , w e f i n d th e S tate refuted the im me dia te nece ss i ty el em en t be y ond a re as ona

bl e doubt. A f

ter a ddu ci ng ev i de nc e of imm inent harm, a defen

dant mus t next establ

is h f acts in dic ating a reasonabl

e bel ie f that the cri

mi nal conduct was reasonably necessary to avoi d the im m i nent harm . Tex . Pen . Code A nn . § 9.22( 1).7

“Re as o na ble be lief” mea ns a be lief t ha t wo uld be he ld by an or dinar y and pr ude nt per so n in the sa me ci rcumstances as t he de fendant
. Id. § 1.0 7( a) (4 5) . R eas ona bleness is d et er mined fro m the defendant’s viewpo int at t he t ime of t he cond uct. See Fitzgerald v. State , 7 82 S .W. 2d 8 76, 885 (T ex. Cr im. App. 1990). Accordin g to the uncontested testim ony, sm oki ng marih

uan a was app ell

ant’s pr efe rr ed co pin g me ch an ism. Ho we ve r , ap pe llant himse lf testifi ed that during a

f i ve -m onth pe riod when he di d not s mokem ari hu an a, th e w ors t thi

ng tha t ha ppe ne d w astha

t he threw a h ot cu p of coff ee at som eone who requi

red n o more than a b and-ai d to treat the i

nj ury . The

i m m i nent harm co mpo nent contempl

ates more than this; i

t necessi tates an im

me dia te, non-del

ib erative a

ction m ade withouthe si

tation or though

t of the l egal cons eque

nc e. See Smi th , 874 S.W .2 d at 272-73. Appellant’s mari

hu an a p oss es si on resul ted from a cons ide

reddec ision t o c ult ivate fif t een mar ihuana plan ts. Appell

ant’s “ me dic inal ” use of m arih uana to man

age his post-t raumatic stress di sorder symp t o ms is

not t he ty pe of i m m i n en t h ar m to wh i ch th e n ec es si ty defens e ap plies. Ac co rd ingly, the dis trictcourt erred

by i nstructi ng th e j ury on the def en se of ne ces si ty. Appellant’s f

i rs t poi nt of err or is overruled an

d the Stat e’s counterpoin

t o f error is

sustain ed. Appellant’s se co nd po int o f er r o rch alle ng es t he t r ial ju dg e’ s r ulin g d en ying his reques ted in

struction that “[t]he jury

shal l h ave the ri ght to determi

ne the l aw and the f

ac ts unde r di recti on o f t his Court .” Although jury nulli fi cation is a recogn ized p art of our judicial

sy stem , there is no constitutional

requirem ent that a tr ia

l judge i nstruct the j ury

on n ull i f i cation. Mouton v. State , 923 S.W.2d 2 19 , 22 1- 22 ( T ex . Ap p. —H o us t o n [ 14 t h D ist
. ] 19 96 , no pe t . )
. T ex as law o n ju r y nu l l i f i ca ti on instr uct ions is limi

t ed a nd gene ra lly app lies to t he se nt encing p hase of c apit al punishment
cases. See Clay

S. Conra d, Jury Nullification as a Defense Strategy , 2 Te x. Fo ru m Civ. Lib & Civ.4 In its entirety, article I, section 8 reads:

Eve ry per so n shall be at l

i b er ty to s pe ak , w

ri te or pu b l i sh h i s op i n i on s on an y su b j ec t, being responsi

ble for the abus e of that priv il ege; an d no la w sh al l e ver be passed cur t ailing the l i berty of spe ech or of th e pres s. In

pr os ecu t ions fo r t he publ i ca ti on of papers, i n v esti ga ti n g th e c on du ct of

of f i cers , or m

en i n pu b l i c c ap ac i

ty , or wh en t he ma tt er p ublished is p ro per for public infor matio n, t he t ru t h t her eo f may be given i n evi dence. And

i n al l i n di ctm en ts f or l i b els, th e j ur

y sh al l h av e th e ri gh t to det er mine the 8 R. 1, 1 9 (1 995 ). In

othe r con tex ts, f ed era l cou rts f ac ed wi th req ue sts f or j ury nu l l i f i ca ti on instr uct ions ha ve co nsis t en t ly held t he r e is no con sti tution al ri ght to such a

n i nstructi on. See, e.g. , Creasev. McKune , 189 F.3d 1188, 1 194 (1 0th C i

r. 1999 ) (hol

di ng d ef endan t not enti tle d to ju ry nu l l i f i ca ti on in struction where ex par

tecom m uni cation had occurred b etween the j udge and a j uror); United States v. Funches , 13 5 F .3d 140 5,1 409(11 th C i

r. 1 998 ) (h

ol ding , in a case f or wro ngf

ul pos se ss i on

o f afir ea r m, “[ b] ec au se t he jury en jo ys no r ight t o nu lli

fy crimi nal laws, and t he de fendant
en jo ys a r igh t t o ne it he ra n ullific at io n in stru ct ion no r a nullif icat ion ar gument t o t he jur y, t he potential f or nul l i f i cation i s n

o bas i s f or adm i ttin g otherw i se i rrelev an t evi den ce” ); United States v. Pow ell , 955 F.2d1206, 1213 ( 9t h Cir. 1992 ) (r ejecting defendant’s en ti tl em en t to j ury nu l l i f i ca ti on i nstructi ons i

n c ase i nv olv i ng w i l f ul f ail ure to f i l e i nc ome tax re turns ). Appe llantci

tes the Tex as C onsti

tution f or the propos i

tion that a ri

ght to j ury nu l l i f i ca ti on does exist. See Tex. Const . art . I, § 8. Specificall y, he rel ies on the last clause of the last sentence , sta

ti n g, “ A n d i n al l i n di ctm en ts for libels, t he jur y shall have t he r ight to determi ne the l aw and th e f ac ts, un der the d i re cti on of th e c our t, as in other cases .” Id. (emph asi s added). We rej ect appellant’s argumen

t t hat th i s s uppor ts a con sti tuti on al ri gh t to a nullifi

cat ion inst ru ct ion. Appe llant takes th i s state

men t out of con tex t. 4 Fi ndi ng no pl ausi ble support for appellant’s conten ti on, welaw an d the facts, under t he di

rection o f the court , as in other cases. Tex. Const. art. I, § 8. 9 agr ee w ith and f

oll ow the l i ne of f edera l cas es re j ecti ng a def endan t’s c onsti tution al ri ght to a j ury nu l l i f i ca ti on i nstructi on. We agre e wi

th our si ster court t ha t , “w hile jury

nulli fi cation may

exi st as a part of our j us ti ce sy ste m , i t i s n ot a legal st anda rd and is no t a co nst itu t ional r ight of th e def en da n t. The co ur t ’s du t y is to instr uct t he jur y on t he law, and t he t rial co ur t in the i n sta n t ca se com pl i ed wi th that dut y.” Mouton , 923 S.W.2d at 222. P oint of error num ber two is overruled. By app ellant’ s t hird p oint of e rr or , he ar gue s t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in admit t ing evi dence re lating t o t he amo unt and val ue of the m

arih uana discovered and that the adm is si on of such evi dence pre judice d h i s m ed i ca l n ec es si ty de f ense . A pp el l an t urge s th i s C our t to co n si der that, because he st ipulat ed t o t he amo unt of mar ihuana f oun d, n o f ur th er ev i den ce con cern i n g th e q ua n ti ty of marihua na wa s nec essa ry. We re vi ew th e err one ousad m i ss i on of ev i de nc e u si ng an ab us e of di screti on stan dard. See Wy

att v. State , 23 S.W .3d 18, 2 9 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2000 ). If o ver whelming evidence diss ipates the erro r so that it did no t co nt r ibu t e t o t he ve r dic t , t he r ev iew ing co ur t sho uld
cons i der the error h

arm l ess . See id
. The St at e pr ese nt ed t est imony comp ar ing t he qu an ti ty of m arih uana appel

la nt used da ily wit h t he amo un t o f mar ihu an a h is pl an ts coul d produc e. A

nar co t ics o ffi

cer also t est ifi

ed t o t he
m onetary st re et value o f the marihua na i n appe l l an t’s pos se ss i on , c on cl

udi n g th at th e n um b er of pl an ts fou nd in appell ant’s possession was in

consist ent wi th per so na l us e. Ap pe llant o bje ct ed t o t his t es t imo ny, asserting that, absent distrib ution charges and the State ’s f ai l ure to prov i denoti ceof5 Appel la nt argues in his br ief t ha t “[ a] Ru le 4 03 an alys is o f t he o bje ct io na ble ev ide nc e in t he case at bar favors t he defen dant.” Ho wever, because appella nt citesno p lace in t he r eco rd wher e he obje cted t o t he evi dence re l y i n g on ru l e 4 03 , a

n d w e c oul

d f i n d n o su ch ob j ec ti on , he f

ai l ed to pres erv e this as serted

error f or appea l
. See Tex . R. A

pp. P. 33 .1(a). 10 po ss ible prior bad acts t estim ony, the test imo ny

wasi nadm i ssi bl e un der rul e 404 (b). See Tex. R. Evid. 404 (b) . T he St at e r esp ond ed t hat beca use app ellant failed t o r equ est not ice o f the St at e’s int ent t o u se t his evidenc e, he waived any ru le 404 (b) objec t ion and that, in an y e ven t, its use of ev

ide nce re gar ding the amou nt o f m arihuana found was pr ope r t o r ebut a ppellant’s me dic al necess ity defen se. 5 The t rial co ur t ove rr uled a ppe llant’s o bject ions regardin g the adm is si bi li ty of this evi

dence. Howev

er, t he co ur t sus t ained a ppe llant’s o bject ions t o t he Stat e’s attempt to eli ci t t estim ony tha t appellant’s
ar re st inter ru pt ed his c ommer cial op er at ion.

A reviewi ng court must ascertain

the probable eff

ect admi tt in g evi dence has o n t he jury’s verdict and should not o verturn a cri mi nal convi ction if, af ter exami ni ng the record as whole, t he court “h

as f ai r assurance tha

t t he error did n

ot in fl uence the j ury , o r ha

d bu t a sl i ght e f f ect.” Johnson v. S

tate , 96 7 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim . App. 1998). Here, t he State clai ms that intr od ucing ev

i den ce estab l i sh i n g th e q ua n ti ty of mar ihuana found on appel la nt’s property was proper to r eb ut ap pe llant ’s po sit io n t ha t he gr ew mar ih uana only for hi s own m

edi ci nal use. Vi ewed as rebuttalev

i den ce to appe l l an

t’s medi cal ne ce ss i ty de f en se , th e evi

de nc e s ati sf

i esthe req ui rem en ts of rule 404 (b). See Montgo meryv. State , 8 10 S .W. 2d 3 72, 387 -8 8 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 199 0) (ho lding evi dence is adm is si ble to r ebut defe

nsi ve theo ry ). Be ca us e th e j ur y h ea rd suf f i ci en t testi mon y to co nvi ct ap pe llan t wit ho ut t he ev id en ce ap pe llan t cla ims w as er r o ne o us ly ad mit t ed , we ca nno t sa y11

that such testi mon y h ad moreth an

a s l i gh t, i f an y , i nf lue nce on the j ury’ s f

in din gs or that such evi dence warran

ts reversal . Point of error t hree i s overruled. In his fo ur t h a nd fift h p o int s o f er r o r , ap pe llant ch alle ng es his pro bation conditions. By point of error four, appell ant argues that by

orde ring him i

nt o t he su bst ance abus e felony puni shment program, the trial court fai

le d to consider appella

nt’s m edi cal dia gnosi s and h

i s pre scri ption us e of ma rin ol. We em

ploy an ab us e of di screti on s tan da rd i n e xa m i ni ng con di ti ons of proba tion
. Dellinge

r v. State , 872 S.W.2d49, 51 ( Te x. App. —Fo rt Wor t h 199 4, pet . r ef’d) . T he trial co ur t has br oa d disc re t ion in set t ing pr oba t ion co ndit ions reasonabl y rel ated to the

trea tmen t of t he accused an

d the prot ection of the publi c. Tex. Code Crim . Pro c. Ann. art. 4 2.12, § 11(a) ( West Supp. 2002) (“The j udge m ay i m pos e a ny rea son ab l e c ond i ti on th at i s des i gned

to prote ct or

restore t he co mmunity, pr ot ect or re st or e t he vi c tim , or pun i sh , rehab i l i

tate, or ref

orm th e def endan t.”); Hernandez

v. State , 556 S.W.2d33 7, 34 2- 43 ( T ex . Cr im. A pp . 19 77 ). F or a

pr ob ati on con di ti on to be invalid, t he co ndit ion must : ( 1) have no r elat ionship t o t he cr ime; (2) be related to conduct t hat is not in i tself crim in al ; an d (3) f orbi d or requi re con duct tha t is not reas onab l

y related to the f

uture cri m i n al i ty of the de f en da nt or doe s n ot serv e the s tatutor

y en dsof proba tion
. McArthur

v. State , 1 S.W.3d 323, 33 2 (Tex . App.—F ort Worth 19 99, pet. ref ’d), cert denied , 531 U .S. 873 (2 000); Marcum v

. State , 983 S.W .2d 762 , 768 (Tex. A pp.—H ouston [14th Dist.] 1998 , pet. ref ’d). Durin g the sentenci

ng phase, appella

nt objec ted to any in patien t t reatment program because , “[g]i

ven the fac t that [ appell

ant] has apr es cr ipt io n fo rT HC , [ it ] se ems . . . r at he rimpo ss ible to be given T HC a nd

be o n a dr ug t re at ment p lan to get one off THC.” The trial

court acknowl edged that i t wa s a “ kn otty pr ob l em.” In

f ash i oni n g “i ts ownpr og ra m,” t he t rial co ur t or der ed a ppe llant12

comm itted t o t he su bs t an ce ab us e p r o gr am a nd fu r t he ro r de r ed “t ha t he be allo we d t o t ak e h is d ul ypr es cr ibe d me dic at io ns, wh et he rit inc lud es Ma r ino l, o rwh at ev er it migh t be
. ” F r o m t he r ec o r d, it is clear t hat t he trial

court considered appella

nt’s m edi cal dia gnosi s and f

ashi oned i ts order t o a cco unt f orappe l l an

t’s pre scri ption of mar inol. T he o nly ord er objec t ionable t o a ppe llantwas that he “cease and desist from the useof mar ijuana by sm oking.” Un

der these ci

rcumstances, we can

not say the tri al
co ur t ab us ed it s d isc r et io n in s en t en cin g a pp ella nt t o t he su bst an ce ab us e p r o gr am.

In hi s fi fth point of error , appellan t co ntends that, because he was entitl ed to
mandatory

probation under the statute by whi ch h e was in dicted, t he trial

judg e’s o rd er incarc er at ing him for seve n day s prior to begin

ni ng the sub stance ab

use program was erroneous. App el lant’s
ar gument is

without meri

t. Appell ant’s actual

sentence of one y ear confi nem ent was probated for two years. T he r eq uir eme nt t ha t he sp en d s ev en da ys in ja il as a de toxi f i ca ti on p eri od w asa c ond

i ti on of prob ati on and of

the s ubs tanc e ab use program , not of th

e one year i m pri sonm en t. See 37 Tex . Ad mi n. Co de § 159 .1 (2 001 ). We ho ld t hat t he t rial co ur t did no t abus e its discr et ion in set t ing appella nt’s probation condi

tions. We

overrule poi

nts of error four and f

iv e. Fin ally, in his sixth po int o f err or , a ppe llant co nt ends th at t he jud gme nt inc o rr ec t ly refl ectedan af

fi rmati ve deadl y weapon fi

ndi ng. The record refl

ect s a n a ffir mati

ve de adl y we ap on finding but it sh ows no support for such

a f i nd i ng . A t oral arg um en t, th e Sta te c onc ed ed

err or on t his poi n t. The re for e, we mo dify the judg ment t o r eflect a neg at ive dea dly weap on finding an d s us t ain appe l l an t’s s i xth poi nt of error.13 CONCLU SION We su st ain the S tat e’s cou nter point o f erro r and app ell ant’s sixth p oint of e rr or and
mo dify the j udg men t to rem ove the de adl y we ap on f i nd i ng . A ppe l l an t’s poi nts of err orone through fi ve are overruled. The convi ction i s m odif ie d and, as m

odif ie d, aff irm ed.

__________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Ye akel

an d Pa tters on Modif ie d and, as Modi fi

ed, Af fi rmed File d: January

10, 2002 Publish