Sect i on 2 1. 15( b) ( 2) pr ov i des, i n r el ev ant par t , t he f ol l owi ng: 1 ( b) a pe r son co m m i t s an of f ense i f t he p er son:



### NUM BER 13-09- 0059 5-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG

DON A LD RA

Y L UED ECK E, A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 29t h Dist rict C ou rt of W ha rton C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, B en av ide s, an d Vela M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t Don ald Ray Luedec ke ple aded g uil ty to tw enty -s ix count s of im p ro p er
v is ual r ecor din g
. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 21. 15 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009)

. Ap pel lan t 1. . . . ( 2) phot ogr aphs or by v i deot ape or ot her el ect r oni c m eans r ecor ds, br oadc as t s , or tra n s m its a vis u a l i m a g e o f a n o th e r a t a l o c a ti o n th a t i s a b a th ro o m o r p riva te dr essi ng r oom : ( A) wi t hout t he o t her per son' s conse nt ; and ( B) wi t h i nt ent t o: ( i ) i nv ade t he p r i v acy of t he o t her per son; or (ii ) a ro u s e o r g ra ti fy t h e s e x u a l d e s i re o f a n y p e rs o n
. . . . T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 1.15 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 09 ).

B e c a u s e th i s i s a m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n a n d th e p a rti e s a re fa m i l i a r w i th th e fa c ts , w e w i l l n o t re c i te 2 th e m h e re e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry t o a d v i s e th e p a rti e s o f th e C o u rt's d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4. 2 electe d to ha v e the t rial court assess pu nishm ent , and he w as sen ten ced to tw ent y -six
conc ur re nt s entenc es of tw o y ear s e ach in the s tate jai l div is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cor r e c t i o n s , p l u s a $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 fi n e
. B y o n e i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t g e n e r a l l y c o n t e n d s his due pr oces s w as deni ed w hen, at t he puni shment hear ing , t he tr ial cou rt vie wed tape d
ev i de nc e for

t he p ur po s e of fa c t fi nd i ng w i th ou t pr oc ee di ng s i n a pu bl i c t r i al

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND 2 By hi s g uil ty

pl ea, a ppel lan t admi tted that he pl aced a v ide o r ecor der i n the bathr oom of his st or e i n v iol ati on of sec ti on 21. 15( b) (2 ) of the T ex as Penal Code. See id

. At t he puni shment hear ing , D etec ti v e R uss ell U rb an te sti fied th at he had view ed th e recordings. On cross-examina tion, Detective Ur ban testif ied that the recordings w ere also sho wn to the thr ee v ic ti ms, the d is tr ic t at tor ney , and an a ss is tant dis tr ic t at tor ney
. In addi ti on, i t i s u ndi sput ed th at ap pel lan t, his co u n se l, a n d the tr ial j udg e v iew ed th e
re cor din g s o uts ide the cour tr oom. The tr ial j udg e's r ev iew of the v ide otapes i s s uppor ted by his af f idavit, w hich w as f iled as pa rt of the sup plem ent a l c le rk ' s record in this app eal.3

In th e af f id a vit, th e tri a l ju d ge a vowed th e f o llo wing: I v iew ed a v ide o of t he ev ents of "Impr oper Vi sual R ecor din g " before I r ule d on th e sen ten cing i ssu e in this case at th e request of both the St ate 's attor ney and defense at tor ney
. . . . Si nce the c ase was completed I re v iew ed th e fil e and the t ra nsc ri pt an d I am not abl e to loc ate anyw her e the v ide o w as admit ted i nto e v ide nce. Ex ceptfor t his aff ida v it , w e find nothi ng in the r ecor d r eg ar din g the tr ial co urt' s v iew ing of the r ecor din g s or any r eq uestfor a dmis si on of the v ide otapes i nto e v ide nce. The
re cor din g s a re not a par t of the appel lat e r ecor d.

II. D I S CUS S I ON By hi s s ole i ss ue, appel lan t cont ends that he w as deni ed th e pr otec ti on of the due pr oces s c lau se of the F our teent h Amendmentbec ause the fundamenta l g uar antee that pr oceed ing s i n c ri minal tr ial s s hal l be h e ld i n a p ubl ictr ial w as dis re g ar ded. See U .S. C ON ST . amend. VI; T EX
. C ON ST . art. I, § 10; T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 1.24 (V er non 2005)

. Mo re sp eci fical ly , app ell ant a ss erts that w hen the pr osec utor and defense at tor ney ag r ee d to s ho w th e tr i al j ud g e th e r ec or di ng s w i th ou t th e pr ot ec ti on s of an open cou rt proce edin g, he w as de nied due process. Ap pellan t claims th at alth ough th e trial co urt did not d is mis s indi v idu als f ro m the cour tr oom duri ng tr ial pr oceed ing s, itdi d ex cl ude a cr uci al part of the pro ceed ings from the pu blic trial. Appell a n t not es tha t the recordings w ere
nev er off er ed, a dmit ted, or fil ed of r ecor d and c o n tends thatthi s i s a n i mport ant
c on s i de r at i on b ec au s e he h ad t he b ur de n to b r i ng for w ar d a r ec or d to s up po rt hi s c l ai ms on appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33. 1. App ellant argues tha t, und er these circumsta nces,
w her e a ful l re cor d of the pr oceed ing s, inc lud ing a r ecor d of al l ex hib it s o f f e re d i nto evidence was no t prep ared , he h ad n one of the pro tectio ns of

due process af

f orde d him by the United St ate s and Te x as Const itution s.4 A
. W A I VER Ty pic all y , t he r ig ht t o a publi c tr ial is rev iew ed in t er ms of a c our t' s a cti on to ex cl ude per sons or

pr ess from an open c our t hea ri ng
. See A ddy v. Stat e , 849 S.W .2d 425, 42 8- 29 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st D ist.] 199 3, no pet .). W hile app ellant com plains that due proce ss
w as v iolate d by disr egarding his ri ght to a pu blic trial, the on ly portion of

this pub lic pr o ce e d in g aboutw hic h he compl ain s i s t he tr ial co urt' s p ri v ate v iew ing of the
re cor din g s— a pr ocedu re thatappel lan t admi ts his att or ney ag re ed to at tr ial

. And, as appel lan t c onced es, the ri g ht t o a p ubl ictr ial i s n ot an abs olu te r ig ht. See id . at429. Mo re ov er , fail ure t o o b je ct to t he c los ing of the c our tr oom w il l ser

v e to w aiv e the r ig ht t o a publ ictr ial

. See Le vi ne v . U nit ed St ates , 362 U.S. 610 , 619 (1960 ). In t his ca se, al thoug h appel lan t c omplai ns that the v iew ing of the v ide otapes took place ou t s id e the cou rtroom rather tha n in ope n cou rt, he ad mits th at th is out-of -court
v iew ing occ ur re d "by ag re ement of t he Stat e and the defense attor ney pr ior to ru li ng at the puni shment hear ing ." Appel lan t di d not o bje ct to t he tr ial co urt' s i n- chamber s v iew ing of the v ide o on due pr oces s a nd di d not req uestthat the v ide otapes be a dmit ted a s e v ide nce. Base d on his ac ti ons, appel lan t t her efore w aiv ed hi s r ig ht to c o m p la in on a ppeal of not
re cei v ing a publ ichear ing

. See id ; see also Bi tter m an v . St ate , 1 8 0 S

. W

. 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 1 (T e x. Crim. App . 200 5) (conclud ing that even a con stitutio nal right comp laint can be w aived). B. I NV I TE D E RROR Fur ther more, by

hi s a cti ons, appel lan t i nv it ed any al leg ed err or

by r eq uest ing and ag re ein g to the o ut- of-cou rt v iew ing pr ocedu re
. Hav ing done so, ap p e ll ant i s e sto pped from co mplai nin g of not h a ving a r ecor d of the pr oceed ing s. See Dr uer y v . St ate , 2255

S. W

. 3 d 4 9 1 , 5 0 6 ( Te x
. C r i m
. A p p
. 2 0 0 7 ) ( " [ T] h e l a w o f i n v i t e d e r r o r e s t o p s a par ty from maki ng an a ppel lat e er ro r of an act ion i t i nduce d.") ; Pr ys tas h v . St ate , 3 S.W .3d 522, 531 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) (en banc) ( ex pla ini ng that"the doct ri ne of i nv it ed er ro r est ops the appel lan t from compl ain ing of it " and desc ri bin g "i nv it ed er ro r" as "more than, and different from, w aiv er ," bec ause "inv it ed er ro r" ex cl udes from the defini ti on of "r ev er si ble er ro r" any action s of the trial court "actu ally sought by the pa rty

in that tribu nal" ); Ex parte Gu errero , 521 S. W .2d 6 13, 6 14 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1975) ("[ A]n acc used canno t i nv it e er ro r and t hen
com plain th ereo f ."). Base d on the a bov e anal y si s, w e ov er ru le appel lan t' s s ole i ss ue. III
. C ONCL US I ON Acc or din g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.
NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 5th d ay of Aug ust , 201 0.