NO. 07-08 -003 3-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 A DE CE MB ER18, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ DAVID SOL IS, AP PEL LANT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO. 200 7-41 7,7 88; HON. CECIL G. PURY EAR, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CA MP BELL, H AN CO CK and PIR TLE, J J. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Dav id Sol is , appeal s his conv icti ons and sent ences for two count s of aggravated a ssault wi th a dead ly w eap on a nd o ne co untof assau lt on a fam ily

mem ber. Appel lan t was sent enced to 15 y ears i ncarcerati on i n the T e xas D epar tment of Cr imi nal Jus ti c e , I n s t i t u t i o n a l D i v i s i o n , fo r e a c h o f t h e a g g ra v a t e d a s s a u l tw i t h a d e a d l y w eapon convictions an d w as sen ten ced to 10 years incarceration for the a ssa u lton a fam ily me mb er c on v i c ti on . E ac h of t he s e s en te nc es a re to r un c on c ur ren tl y . W e affi r m.2 Back g ro und On or about Janua ry 3, 20 07, a ppel lan t and hi s g ir lfri end, Fransi sc a R amirez , g ot into a n argume nt. As the argumen t escala ted , app ellantbegan hitt ing R am irezw ith his hands

. He, su bseq uentl y , beg an hi tti ng her w it h a bel t buckl e that w as attac hed t o the end of a bel t. Appel lan t’ s u se o f t h e b e lt and bel t buc kl e c aused sc ra tch ing , c utti ng , and br uis ing on Rami re z ’s torso, ar ms, and leg s. After thi ng s s tar ted t o c alm dow n, ap pel lan t p u lle d ou t a sm a ll kn ife an d he ld it a gai n stRa m ire z’s n e ck . T h e f o llo wing m o rn in g, app ellantagain started hitting Ramirez w ith the belt bu ckle and belt. Followi ng these ev ents , Rami re z w ent to w or k and, lat er that afternoo n, w ent to v is it her mother , w here a family member ca ll ed th e pol ic e. At t ri al, the off ic er

thatrespon ded to the cal l, Joe Pi nson, tes ti fied. Pi nson tes ti fied tha t he was a certifie d po lice of f icer w ith the Slaton P o li ce Depa rtme nt for 13 years. He tes ti fied th at he sp oke w it h R amirezaboutthe inc ide nt i n the after noon foll ow ing i ts occ ur re nce and pho tog ra phed he r inj ur ies

. Base d on infor mati on he re cei v ed from Rami re zas w ell as hispersonal obs er v ati on of R amirez ’s i nju ri es, Pi nson tes ti fied abou t the man ner in w h ich app ellanthad used the be lt and belt bu ckle. Ov er app ellant ’s obj ect ion , Pi nson tes ti fied th at a bel t and bel t buck le used in the manner in w hic h appel lan t used them woul d be cons ide re d a d eadl y w eapon. By one is sue, appel lan t c hal len g es the judg ment. Appell ant’ s sol e i ss ue c ontends tha t the t rial cou rt e rred in overruling app ellant ’s objectio n tha t Pinson testif ied as an ex pertBec ause appel lan t’ s s ole i ss ue rela tes onl y to the pro ce d u ral re q uirements for 1 offer ing ex per

t t est imony , we need not a nd, t herefore, do notex press any opi nio n re g ardin g w hether

Pi nson’ s t est imony

w as, i n fact, ex per

t opi nio n tes ti mony . 3 w it ness reg ardin g w hat c onst it utes a de adl y w eapon w it hout the S tate desi g nati ng Pi nson as an ex per

t w it ness i n ac cordance w it h the tr ial co urt’ s l ocal r ule s. Ana ly sis Appel lan t c ontends that t he tr ial co urt er re d i n ov er ru li ng hi s o bje cti on to Pi nson testif y ing as an expert w hen the St ate failed to provide not ice of its inten t to of fer his ex pert tes ti mony , as req uired by the loc al ru les of the cour t. Acco rd ing to appel lan t’ s b ri ef, under 1

“ t h e l o c a l r u l e s o f t h e 1 3 7 D i s t r i c t C o u rt o f L u b b o c k C o u n ty [ , ] b o t h D e fe n s e and th Prosec uti on are re q uired to g iv e noti ce to the other if they pl an to ca ll an e x per

t w it ness to the stand during trial.” How ever, appe llant do es n o tp ro v ide a verifiab le citation to this pur ported l o c a l r u l e a n d n o c o p y o f t h e p u r p o rt e d l o c a l r u l e i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e re c o rd or atta ched to app ellant ’s brief . Our rev iew of t h e l o cal rules app licable to the Lu bbo ck Coun ty District C ourt s d o e s not includ e an y rule w hich requires designatio n of ex pert w it ness es. Se e Loc al Admin is trati v e R ule s o f the D is tr ict C our ts and Co unty

C our ts-AtL a w o f L u b b o c kC o u n ty , T e x a s , h tt p : //w w w . c o . l u b b o c k

. tx . u s / D C l e r k/ P D F / l o c a l r u l e s . p d f; Loca l Procedu ral Rules, Criminal Cases, L ubb ock Coun ty, T exas (2004), http: //w w w .co .l ubboc k.tx .us /D Cr t/PD F/ Local Procedu ra lR ule s.p df; Lubboc k C ounty Loc al F air Defense Act Plan a nd Rule s Section s of the Lo cal Adm inistrative Rules (2004), h t t p : //www.c o . lu b b o c k

. tx. u s / DC rt/ P DF / F a ir De fe n s e A c tA m e n . p d f

. W it h o u tsu b s t a n t ive arg ument or

su ppor ti ng auth or it ies , an is sue canno t be adeq uatel y ev alu ated, and w il l be4

ov er ru led

. T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1( h) ; Lag ro ne v . State, 942 S.W .2d 6 02, 6 14 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)

. As appel lan t’ s sol e ci tati on to suppo rt ing author ity i s t o a p ur por

ted l ocal r ule that canno t be v er ified by

thi s C our

t, w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s i ss ue. W e are, h owev er, min df ul tha t the Te x as Code of Cri min al Proced ure provides, On mot ion of a par

ty and on not ic e to the o ther par ti es, the cour

t i n w hic h an act ion i s p endi ng may

order one or more of the o ther

par ti es to di sc los e to the p arty maki ng the moti on th e name and addres s of each person the o ther par ty may us e at tr ial to presentev ide nce under R ule s 7 02, 703, and 7 05, Tex as Rul es of E v ide nce. The cour t shal l spec ify in the order the t ime and manner i n w hic h the othe r par ty mustmake the d is cl osure to th e mov ing par ty

. . . . T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 39.14( b) ( Ver non 200 5)

. The obj ect ion appel lan t rais ed at t ri al to P ins on’ s t est imony w as that, “ He w asn’ t des ig nated, bas ed on the C our t’ s o rd er that they des ig nate thei r ex per

ts, i f he is g oin g to make an ex per t opi nio n as to w hat i s o r is not a deadl y

w eapon. And I woul d obj ectto that for l ack of noti ce. ” H ow ev er , a re v iew of the c ler k’ s record rev eal s n eit her a moti on for ide nti ficat ion of ex per t w it ness es nor

an orde r from the trial court requiring the State to designat e expert w itnesse s. Th us, th ere is nothi ng i n the record to ind ic ate t hat t he St ate was under any obl ig ati on to des ig nate any expert w itness th at it inten ded to call at trial. Ho wever, ev en were w e to f ind th at th e trial court’s ruling w as in error becau se it v iol ated a l ocal r ule , t ri al couns el obj ect ed on the b asi s t hat P ins on’ s tes ti mony v iol ated a pr ior order of the tr ial court

. If the c omplai nt on appeal does not cor re lat e to the o bje cti on made at tr ial , t he c omplai nant has not p re ser v ed er ro r. T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3.1( a) ; Thomas v . St ate, 723 S. W .2d 696, 700 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1986)

. Beca use appel lan t’ s arg ument on5

app eal do es no t com port wi th th e objection raised at trial, a n y e rror i n the State ’s fa ilure to de si g nate Pi nson as an ex per t w it ness w as not p re ser v ed. Con cl usi on For the foreg oin g reason s, w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s ole i ss ue.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.