NO. 07-08 -039 0-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A OC TOBER7, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ JEROMY KEIT H BRIST OW , APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 18 1 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 55, 398- B; H ON ORABLE JOH N BOAR D, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellant , Jerom y

K eith Bristow, ap pea ls h is se nte nce of 2 0 y ears conf inem entin t h e I n s t i t u t i o n a l D i v i s i o n o f t h e T e x a s D e p a r

t m e n to f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e ( I D - T D C J )
. W e affi r m. Back g ro und On M arc h 13 , 20 07 , ap pe l l an t an d J on at ha n M c Sm i th w ere to g et he r w ith La rry Hatti g i n a h ome l ocat ed in Amar il lo, Tex as. W hil e at the h ome, app ell ant h ad a g un and,2

w hil e “ mess ing ” w it h the g un, s hot a nd k il led M cSmi th. Appel lant was ch a rg ed w it h mu rder. At tr ial , appel lan t w as found g uil ty of t he les ser-i ncl uded charge o f m ansl aug hter and went t o the j ur

y for p uni shment
. Dur ing the pu n ish m e nt proceed ing s, the S tate p re s e n t e d e v i d e n c e o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s p r i o r a d j u d i c a t e d o ffe n s e s incl u d i n g b u rg l a r y o f a b u il d in g, p o s s e s s io n o f m a ri h u a n a , a n d d i s c h a rg e o f a f ir e a rm in s id e a m u n ic ip a li ty. Addi ti onal ly , upo n c ro ss -e x aminat ion of appel lan t, the S tate made statement s t hat rais ed the i ss ue of appel lan t hav ing a “ g ang mental ity ” and t hat a ppel lan t had fail ed to be re habi li tated bec ause, after his re lea se from the Tex as Y outh Commi ss ion , app ell ant was “o ut on the street b uy ing g uns, buy ing amm uni ti on, h av ing dr ug s, and s hooti ng peopl e.” T he jury w as the n cha rg ed a nd, af ter delibe ration s, returne d w ith a sent ence o f 20 years in ID -TD CJ
. App ellantapp eals con ten ding thatt h e t rial court erred in failing to charge the jury duri n g t he p unish me nt proce edin g tha t, be fore it can con sider acts an d of fense s in ass ess ing puni shment , t he tr ier of fact must bel ieve bey ond a re asona ble doubt that the act s a nd offenses a re att ri butabl e to appel lan t. W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. Law and Analysis Und er ar ti cl e 37. 07 of the Tex as Cod e of Crim in a l Procedu re , “ ev ide nce maybe offered .
. . of an extraneous cr ime or bad act that is show n bey ond a re asona ble doubt by evidence to have been com mitt ed b y the de fend antor fo r w hich he could be held crimina lly res p o n s ib le
. . . .” T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 37 .07 § 3(a) (Vernon Supp . 200 8).3

W hen th e S tate admit s s uch ev ide nce, the tr ial co ur t s hal l ins tr uctthe jur

y as to the re asona ble doubtst andard. See H uiz ar v . St ate, 1 2 S .W .3d 479, 48 3 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) . If the t ri al cour

t fail s t o prov ide a c harg e as to the reason abl e doubtst andard, t he charg e er ro r shal l be anal yz ed for har m under ar ti cl e 36. 19. Id. at 484-8 5. The ju dg ment shall no t be rev ersed unle ss the error app earing f rom the record w as calcula ted to injure the r ig hts of appel lan t, or unl ess i t app ears from the re cord tha t appel lan t has not had a fair and impar

ti al tr ial
. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . a rt . 3 6
. 1 9 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ). Al m a n za v. Stat e, 68 6 S. W .2d 1 57 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1984) , s ets forth the appropr iat e harm analysi s for charge error unde r article 36.19 . Huiz ar, 12 S. W .3d a t4 8 4 -8 5
. As such, ap pellan t w ill obtai n a rev ersal onl y

i f the er ro r is so eg re g iou s a s t o c re ate s uch har m that he has not had a fair a nd imp artial trial. See A lma nza, 6 86 S.W .2d a t 171 . Th e actu al degree of harm must be as say ed i n l ig ht of the enti re j ur y ch arg e, t he s tate of the ev ide nce, incl udi ng the cont est ed i ss ues and weig ht of probati v e ev ide nce, the arg ument of c ounse l and any othe r re lev ant i nformati on rev eal ed by the re cord of the tr ial as a w hol e. Id. In th is case it is clear tha t the trial court did notprovi de a n instructio n on reason able doubt. H ow ev er , for the a dju dic ated offenses of burg lar y , posse ss ion of

mar ihu ana, and dis charg e of a f irearm, no i nst ru cti on was neces sar y si nce a j udg e or

j ur y has al re ady made a d eter minat ion of gui ltbey ond a re asona ble doubt i n a p ri or proceed ing
. See B lui tt v . Stat e, 13 7 S.W .3d 51, 54 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 4). Howev er , app ell ant c ontends that the bad act s of “ g ang mental ity ,” pos ses si on of dr ug s, purchas ing g uns and ammuni ti on, a nd shoot ing at peopl e w ere acts ra is ed by the Stat e as unadj udi cat ed offenses. W it hout a re asona ble doubti nst ru cti on c ontai ned i n the4

charge, t h e possi bil ity ex is ted t hat “ a j ur

y mig ht ap ply

a s tandard of proof les s t han re asona ble doubti n i ts deter minat ion of [appel lan t’ s] conne cti on to such offenses and bad act s, cont ra ry

to [ar ti cl e 37. 07] se ct ion 3( a) .” H uiz ar , 12 S.W .3d a t 484
. Appel lan t conte n d s th at t he tr ial co urt er re d i n noti ncl udi ng a reason abl e doubtch arg e i nst ru cti on w it hin the puni shmentch arg e as i t rela tes to thes e unadj udi cat ed offenses. Howev er , upo n rev iew ing the re cord in order to ass ay the deg re e of har m, w e find tha t the record, as a whole, de mo nstrat es tha t any harm suf fered byapp ellantwas not so eg re g io u s a s t o c a u s e a p p e l l a n t t o b e d e n i e d a fa i r a n d i mp a rt i a l t r i a l
. D u r i ng the puni shment p h a se , t he te sti mony and cl osi ng arg ument focus ed on the a dju dic ated offenses . F urther , t he St ate’ s ment ion of “g ang mental ity ” and the purc hases of g uns and ammunit ion w as ra is ed i n the form of a q uest ion w it hout further probi ng . Addi ti onal ly , t he Stat e’s cl osi ng st atement did n o t d e lve i nto t he unadjud ic ated offenses . Taki ng i nto cons ide ra ti on th e ent ire record at puni shment , w e concl ude that t he deg re e of har m w as not e g re g iou s. Al manz a, 68 6 S. W .2d a t 171
. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s i ss ue. Con cl usi on For the foreg oin g reason s, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

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