NOS.0 7-06 -033 8-CR 07-06-03 39-CR 07-06-03 40-CR 07-06-03 42-CR 07-06-03 43-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 AU GU ST 27, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JOHNNY

JOE FLORES, APPE LLA NT V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 25 1 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO. 50, 730 -C, 50,73 2-C, 50,7 33-C, 50 ,73 1-C, 50,7 34-C HO NO RA BLE P ATRIC K PI RTLE, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
A p p e ll a n tJ o h n n yJ o e Fl o re s a p p e a ls f ro m t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s ju d gm e n t s in f ive com pan ion case s, convicting him of agg rav ate d sexual assau lt of a ch ild, sexual assault of a chi ld and i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d by

se x ual co ntact. T he jur y asses sed puni shmentat e ig h ty-f ive ye a rs fo r t h e a ggr a va t e d se xu a l a s s a u ltca s e , a n d twe n ty ye a rs e a c h fo r t h e two sex ual as saul t c ases and the tw o i ndece ncy ca ses . By

hi s s ole i ss ue on appeal , app ell antSee T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 22. 021 (a)(2)(B) (Verno n 20 03). 1 See T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 22. 021 (a)(2) ( Verno n 20 03). 2 See T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 21. 11(a )(1) ( Verno n 20 03). 3 Th e Sta te provided a ppe llant w ith no tice of th e e xt ra neo us con ductev iden ce 4 pursu antto T exas Rule of Ev iden ce 404 (b) and T exas Code of Cri min al Proced ure Article 38.37. Ap pel lan t doe s n ot c hal len g e the Sta te’ s n oti ce. 2 challen ges the trial court’s failure to e x clude ev iden ce of e xtrane ous of

fense s. Becau se w e find the ev ide nce w as proper ly admitted under the Rul es of E v ide nce and the C ode of Criminal Proce dure , w e af f irm the trial court’s judgmen ts. By fiv e Ap ril 2005 i ndi ctment s, appel lan t w as charg ed w it h ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t of

a chi ld, se x ual as saul t of a c hil d, and ind ecency w it h a c hil d by

se x ual co ntact. 1 2 3 On ap pel lan t’ s p lea of not g uil ty , t he fiv e c harg es w ere tr ied tog ether

. Factual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und At t ri al, the Stat e present ed ev ide nce to s how that a p p e lla n t eng ag ed i n s ex ual cont actw it h hi s t hree g re at- nephews, D. A., S.A. and F. A. Ea ch of the v icti ms t est ified

. Theydes cr ibe d mul ti ple i nst ances of si mil ar se x ual co ntact, s o m e of them oc cur ri ng on dates other than thos e set forth in the i ndi ctment s. Ap pel lan t obj ect ed to tes ti mony of the 4 extraneo us acts. The trial court ov err uled app ellant ’s objectio ns, f inding the ev iden ce mo re probati v e tha n preju dic ial and admis si ble as bear ing on rele van t matt ers i ncl udi ng the prev iou s a nd s ubseq uent re lat ion shi p betw een app ell ant a nd th e c hil dren.See T ex. C ode Cri m. Proc. Ann . art. 38 .37 (Vernon 200 5); T ex. R . Evi d. 40 4(b). 5 3 Fol low ing present ati on of the ev ide nce, the jur y retur ned a v erdict of g uil t as al leg ed in each of t he fiv e ind ictments

. The j ur y then heard puni shmentev ide nce and as ses sed pun ishm entat eighty- f iv e y ears for the a gg rav ate d sexual a ssault case, a nd tw ent y y ears each for th e two s ex ual as saul t cases and the tw o indec ency ca ses . The cour

t s entenc ed appel lan t ac cordin g ly , order ing the sent ences to ru n concur re ntl y . This appeal foll ow ed. Ana ly sis Appel lan t c ontends , t hroug h one poi nt of er ro r, that the tr ial cour t er re d in all ow ing the S tate to i ntroduce ev ide nce of appel lan t’ s extraneous conductbecause itfell outs ide the p arameters o f arti cl e 38. 37 of the Cod e of C ri minal Procedu re or any ex cept ion under Tex as Rul e of Ev ide nce 404( b)

. Sp eci fical ly , appel lan t cont ends the Stat e fail ed to sh ow 5 the rele v ance of the extraneous co nductev ide nce. W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t’ s d e ci si on to admi t or ex cl ude ev ide nce for an abuse of dis creti on. Mon tg o mery v . St ate, 810 S.W .2d 3 72, 3 90 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1990) ( op. o n re h’g ). Ac cordin g ly , w e w il l not re vers e a t ria l cour t’ s r uli ng i f it is w it hin the “z one of reaso nab le disagreem ent .” Id. at 39 1. On app eal, the S tate co nte nds f irst th at the t estim ony o f which app ellantapp aren tly com plai ns referred to cond uct like tha t alleged in the indictm ent s and w as no t actu ally extraneous offense ev ide nce, and sec ond t hat t he te sti mony w as not i mprop er ly

admi ttedD .A. tes ti fied appe ll ant h ad s ex ual co ntact w it h hi m about “fiv e more ti mes.” S. A., 6 w hile con f used abo ut spe cif ic date s, testif ied th at ap pellan t had sex ual con tact wi th him “more than three tim es.” F.A. testif ied th at ap pellan t had sex ual con tact wi th him at least tw o time s. 4 even if it constitut ed e v iden ce of ext ra n e o u s o f

fense s. W e agree w ith bo th th e Sta te’s cont ent ions. Beca use the t ri al cour

t t re ated the obj ect ed- to t est imony as ev ide nce of extraneous offenses , w e address that theory f irst. I f the ev ide nce of w hic h appel lan t c omplai ns w as extraneous offense ev ide nce, w e find no er ro r in it s admis si on. Ar ti cl e 38. 37 of the Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re appl ies to prosec uti ons for s ex ual o f fe n ses c ommitt ed ag ain st a chi ld under

se v enteen y ears o f age

. Tex . Code Cr im. Proc. Ann. art. 38.37, § 1 ( Ver non 2005)

. Ar

ti cl e 38. 37 prov ide s i n par t: Notw it hst andi ng R ule 404 and 405 , Tex as Rules o f C ri minal Ev ide nce, e vi dence of other

cr imes , w ro ng s, or

acts commi tted by

the defendant ag ain st the c hil d w ho i s t he v icti m of the al leg ed offense sh all be a dmitted for it s b e a r i n g o n re l e v a n t ma t t e rs i n c l u d i n g : ( 1 ) t h e s t a t e o f mi n d of the defend antand the child; and (2) the previous and subse quent relat ionsh ip betw een t he defendant and t he c hil d. It is undispu ted app ellantw as on trial fo r crime s e num erate d in section one of article 38.37 and t hat e ach of t he v icti ms w as under the ag e of 17. The c hal len g ed te sti mony by the v icti ms i nv olv ed ev ide nce o f o th e r cr imes , w ro ng s, or acts commi tted by

appel lan t a ga in s tt h e m n e a r t h e d a t e s a ll e ge d in t h e in d ic t m e n t s . Un d e r th e st a t u t o ry p ro vis io n , we 6 find th eir tes ti mony

w as re lev ant t o s how

appel lan t’ s s tate of

m ind and the p re v iou s a nd subs eq uent rel ati onshi p betw een appell ant and his three g re at- nephews. See DeLe on v. State , 77 S.W .3d 3 00, 3 11 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2001, pet. ref’d) ; Mc Coy v. Sta te, 10 S .W .3d5

50, 5 4 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1999, no pet .) ; H i n ds v . S ta te, 9 7 0 S .W .2d 33, 35 ( Te x . A p p . – D a l l a s 1 9 9 8 , n o p e t .)

. Se e a lso Sm it h v . St ate , 5 S.W .3d 6 73, 6 78 n. 10 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 99) (cont rasting lan guage of article 38.3 7 w ith tha t of article 38.3 6(a)); Hi nojosa v. State, 9 9 5 S .W .2 d 955, 957 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 1999, no p et.) th (fin din g tes ti mony

co ncer nin g 520 extraneous acts ag ain st chi ld w ere rel ev ant t o s how the sta te of mi nd of appel lan t and ch il d and the p re v iou s a nd s ubseq uent re lat ion shi p betw een app ellantand child; evidence was relevant an d did no t v iolate rules 401 or 402). W e al so find, h ow ev er , t hat t he tr ial co urt was not req uired to treat t he te sti mony as prese nting evi den ce of

extrane ous of

fense s. Th e test imo ny of w hich ap pellan t app aren tly compl ain s co nsi sts of ins tanc es of conduct pur por tedl y outs ide the act s a ll eg ed i n the ind ictment. H ow ev er , eac h of the encou nters tes ti fied to by eac h of the v icti ms i nv olv ed condu ct li ke that all eg ed i n the i ndi ctment s. An extr a n e o u s offense is any act of mis condu ct, w hether

resul ti ng i n prosec uti on or n o t, w hic h i s n ot s how n i n the ch arg ing ins tr ument an d w hic h was to ha v e been commi tted by the acc used. Br

own v. Sta te, 6 S.W .3d 571, 575 ( Tex .App. –Ty ler 1999, no p et.) , citi

ng Her nandez v. Sta te, 817 S.W .2d 744, 746 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1991, no p et.)

. It is p e rm iss ib le for t he St ate t o st presentev ide nce of multi ple oc cur re nces of the act s all eg ed in the ind ictment, ev en if the e vid e n c e sh o ws t h a tsu c h a c t s we re co m m it t e d o n d if fe re n t d a t e s f ro m t h e d a t e s sh o wn in the i ndi ctment

. Id.Th e prior acts w ere de scribed m ore f ully in the op inion o f

t he co urt of

app eals. 7 Ver non v. Sta te, 814 S.W .2d 8 45 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 19 91) , re v’

d, 841 S. W .2d 4 07 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1992)

. 6 Thus, li ke the c our

t i n Br own, w e find Ver

non v . St ate, 841 S.W .2d 4 07 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) , on w hic h appel lan t reli es, di sti ng uis habl e. Br own, 6 S.W .3d at 575- 76. Here, the f iv e indictm ent s charged app ellantwith ca using t he anu s o f F.A. to con tact the s ex ual org an of appel lan t, caus ing the sex ual org an of appel lan t t o penet ra te t he anus of F.A. , c ausi ng the penetration o f t h e anus of D. A. b y

the sex ual org an of appel lan t, caus ing the anus of D .A. to cont act the sex ual org an of appel lan t, caus ing penet ra ti on of the mout h of D. A. b y

the appel lan t’ s s ex ual org an, c ausi ng the mouth of D. A. to contact t he sexual organ of

app ellant , engaging i n sexual conta ct w ith D.A. by touchin g the g enita ls of D.A ., and eng ag ing i n s ex ual cont act w it h S.A. by touc hin g the g eni tal s o f S.A. The acts tes ti fied to by

the v icti ms dur ing tr ial w ere mul ti ple i nst ances of thi s b ehav ior on d ifferent dates

. D. A. t est ified “ they woul d a lways b e the sa me thi ng s.” I n Ver non , bec ause the ind ictment charg ed th e ac cus ed w it h di g it al penetrati on, n ot t he pr ior acts of exter nal touc hin g , t hose ins tanc es w ere extraneous . W e thu s fin d appel lan t’ s reli ance on Ver non 7 mis pla ced. See Hol

m es v. State , No. 0 5- 03- 00915- CR , 200 4 W L 28048 00 (Tex .App. –Da ll as Nov . 30, 2004, no p et.)( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) (a p p lyin g Br

own ); W

il son v. Sta te , N o. 06 -0 0- 00008- CR , 200 2 W L 99210 8 (Tex .App. –Tex ar kana M a y 1 6, 20 02, n o pet .) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) (d ist in gui sh in g Br

ownand Ver

non ).7

L a s t l y , a p p e l l a n ta p p e a rs t o a d v a n c e a c h a l l e n g e u n d e r R u l e o f E v i d e n c e 4 0 3

. We find no abuse of dis creti o n i n the tr ial co urt’ s e v alu ati on of the bal ance betw een t he probati v e and preju dic ial natu re s o f the c hal len g ed testi mony . The chal len g ed te sti mony invol ved a cts of the same n ature as the charg ed offenses a nd w as heard dur ing the v icti ms’ testi mony

reg ardin g the charg ed offenses. See Montgo m ery , 810 S. W .2d a t 390 (o utl ini ng factors for

R ule 403 anal y si s) . The Stat e’s need for th e ev ide nce, l ik e tha t not ed by thi s C our

t i n McCoy, 10 S .W .3d a t 54, i s d ifficul t t o as ses s e mpir ic all y , but it s p re jud ic ial effect s d id not s ubst anti all y ex ceed it s p ro bati v e v alu e. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s i ss ue, a nd affirm t he tr ial co urt’ s judg ment i n eac h of the f iv e cau ses.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.