1 Silvest re Calixto ’s mur der co nvictio n is affirmed in a sep ar at e o pinion. Calixtov. State , No.

03-01 -0001 6-CR

(Tex . App.—A

usti n D ec. 20 , 2001, n

o pet. h.) (n

ot desi gna ted f or pub l i cation). 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00163-CR

Romual do Cali xto, Appel

lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 0993198, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

A picku p t ru ck d riven by

appella nt Romual

do Cali xto forced anothert ru ck d riven by Enri que Rodriguez to the side of the road. Sil

vestre Martin

ez Cal ix to , in the truck with his brother Rom ual do, then f

ired at least tengunsh

ot s at Rodriguez. Four bul le ts struck Ro dr igu ez , killing him. At a jo int t r ial, a ju ry fo un d b o t h a pp ella nt an d S ilve st r e C alix t o gu ilt y of m urde r and asse ssed punishment at i

m pri sonm en t for l i f e. SeeTe x. P en. Co de Ann. § 19 .0 2 ( West 199 4) . Ap pellant bri ngs for war d t welve p oint s o f err or asse rt ing er ro r in t he ad mission o f evidence and in t he j ur y charge, and c omp laining that his tr ial cou nsel wa s ineffect ive. We w ill ove rr ule t hese po ints a nd affirm appe llant’s c onvict ion. 12 Rod riguez’s murder was

the outgr owth of a feud b etween the Cal ix to and Rodri guez fam il ie s in Mexi co. Memb ers of appel

la nt’s f am il y testi fi ed that there had been

bad b lood between t he f am i l i esf orman y yea r s. T he y sa id t ha t a me mbe ro f t he Ro dr igu ez family fa t ally shot appellant’s un cle in Mexi co in 1988, and t hat ano ther Rod riguez fata ll y shot app ell

ant’s co usin in Mexico one m on th b ef oreth e inst ant shootin

g. A ppel l an t’s b rother Ef ren Cal i xto testif i ed th at he

he ard Romual do and S ilvestr e sa y at a famil y gat her ingt ha t “t he y we r e g o ing t o ge t ev en fo rt his problem that had b een h

anded to my

uncl e and cousi

n i n Mex ico .” Efr en sai

d that his brothers had be en dr inkingand h

e di d not t ake them

seri ously , but he al so test if

ie d that he “t ried t o c ou nsel t hem, t elling them we di dn’ t wan t any troubl e h ere i n the Un i ted States.” The re was testim

ony tha t Enrique Rodri guez had b een i nvol ved i n attac ks agains

t appellant’s fam

il y m em bers i n Mex ic o. Efren Cal

ix to testifi ed t hat Ro dr iguez was t he man wh o sh ot his unc l e. Both Efren an

d another brother, Dor ot eo Cali xto, t estif ie d that Rodriguez had driven past Sil vestre’s A

ustin apartment on sev

eral occasi

ons, and that Sil

vestre had ex

pressed conc ern fo rhis and hi s f am il y’ s saf ety. Dorot eo test if

ie d that Sil

vestre told hi

m the da y b efore Rodriguez

was kill ed t ha t he wa s g o ing t o sho o t Ro dr igu ez be fo r e R o dr igu ez co uld sho o t him.

Appe llantand Sil

ve stre were

arrested wi

thi n h ours of Ro dr iguez ’s mur der and g ave vi deotaped st at eme nt s t o t he po lice in Sp anish. T he v i de otap es an d tr anscri pti on s of th e state men ts in both Spanish an

d Engli sh wer e intr od uce d in evidenc e. Appe llant t old t he police that he had agreed to dri v e S i l v estreto wor

k th at m orn i n g. A f ter th ey l ef t Si l v estre ’s ap ar tmen t, Sil vestre told app ellant to drive to Ro driguez’s apartment and gave hi m di rections. When they s

pot ted Ro dr iguez in hi s3

pic kup, Sil vestre ordered appe l l an

t to driv e up b esi de Rodr i guez ’struck. Appel

la nt did s o, and then Sil vestre shot Rodriguez wi

th a pis to l h e was carry

in g. In hi s statemen

t, Silv estre admi tt ed sho ot ing Ro dr iguez . H is desc ript ion o f the ev en ts leadi ng up to the shoo ting was si mi lar to app ell

ant’s. Admission o

f appellant’s

statement Bef ore custodial

in terro gation, a suspect m

ust be advised of an

d k no win gly and vo lun t ar ily

wai v e h i s r i gh t to rem ai n s i l en t. Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 467-68, 475 (1966 ); Te x. Cod e Cri m . Pr oc. A n n . a rt. 38.22, § 3(a)(2 ) (We st Supp . 2002) . T he r ec o r d s ho ws t ha t Au st in Police Off ic er Ismae l C am

pa advised

app ellant o f his cons t itu t ional and st at ut or y right s, includ ing t he right to rem

ai n s i l en t, bef ore ques tion i ng h i m . The record also s h ows th at a pp el l an t wa i v ed h i s r i gh ts and agreed to speak to the police. Appel la nt argues, however, thathi s wai ver of the ri

ght to sile nce was not kno wing and volu nt ar y becau se he did no t unde rst and t he nat ur e o f the right and be cau se t he pol i ce de cei

ve d hi m regar di ng c ertai n m aterial f acts. The t ra nsc rip t o f ap pe llant ’s s t at eme nt re flect s t hat Office r C amp a, aft er a dvising app ellant o f his r igh t s, as ke d h im if he was wi

ll in g to talk, “Yes

o r n o ?” Ap pe llant re plied , “ And if, if I sa y no? I f we do n’t t alk?” C ampa a ns were d, “We do need t o t alk. Are w e go ing t o t alk?” Ap pel la n t r es po nd ed , “T ha t ’s fine . ” A pp ella nt co nt en ds wit ho ut fur t he rela bo r at io n t ha t t his exch angedemon strate s th

at h e d i d n ot un ders tan d th e n atu reof th e ri gh t to rem ain silent. To t he co nt r ar y, appella

nt’s questi on shows he

understood t hat

he co uld r efu se t o t alk to the off ic er. It was4

nei ther pos si bl e n orn ec es sa ry f or th e of f i cer to pr edict for app ellant t he co nseq uenc es o f his decisio n. Point of error eigh

t is overruled. Appe llantalso co mplains tha t Campa misl ed him by telling him severa l times t hat t he police al ready kn ewwhat had

ha ppe ne d a nd tha t ap pe l l an t did n ot “ do a ny thi ng .” A con f es si on will be deem ed i nvol untary onl y i f i t was in duced by an in terro gation techn

ique cal cul ated to produce an untruthful conf ess i on or o ff

ensi ve t o due proce ss. Dotsey v. State , 6 30 S .W. 2d 3 43, 349 (T ex. Ap p. —A us t in

19 82 , no pe t . ) . T ha t a f

r ien dl y, supportive, nonc onfr ont at ional st yle of qu est ioning ma y pr o ve effe ct ive in e licit ing an inc r iminat ing st at eme nt do es no t mea n t ha t su ch qu es t io ning is im proper or that the

resu l tin g statem en t is i nv olu ntary. Lane v. State , 9 33 S .W. 2d 5 04, 513 (T ex. Cr im. Ap p. 1996 ). The

tacti cs s hown by thi s rec ord were

well wi thin the boundsof p ro pr iety. Po int of error nin

e i s overruled. Appe llantf

urthe r argue s tha

t a sworn in terpret er shoul d have been used to in terpret his vi deotaped statem en t when i t was p l ay

ed f or the j ury . Sim

il arly, he argues t hat the English tran scri ption sho uld have been p re par ed by a s wo rn int er pr et er . H e r elies o n Le al v. State , 782 S.W.2d 844 ( Tex . Cri

m. App . 1 989 ). In Leal , the court hel d that t he adm

is si on of a recorded con ve rs ati on in a f ore i gn l an gu ag e is a n al ogou s to t est imony by a non- Eng lish speak er , a nd t hat t he saf eguards of a

rtic l e 38.3 0 app l

y . Leal , 782 S.W.2dat 849; Tex. Code Crim . Proc. An n. art. 38.30 (We st Supp. 2 002 ). The co ur t held t hat on a pr op er mot ion o r o bject ion, an inte rp re t er must be sworn to tra n sl ate t he recorde d con

versati on. Leal , 782 S.W.2d at 849. T he court further hel d that it was error t o us e a w ritten translation of the recorded convers ation over obj ection wi thout2 The record contradic ts appe llant’ s assertion that the interpr eter who pr epared the

transcriptions was not ava ilable for questioning by c ounsel.

5 det er mini ng t he qu alific at io ns o f t he pe r so n w ho mad e t he t r an sla t io n o rmak ing t ha t pe r so n a va ilable f or cross-e xa m i na tion . Id . Appe llantconc edes

that he di

d not req ues t the ap

poi ntm en t of a s worn i nterpreter, and tha t no ob j ec ti on to th

e adm i ss i on of ei the r th e v i de otap e or th

e w ri tten tran scri ption/ tran sl ati on was ma de on this ground. He argues that his atto rney was in eff ective because h

e fai led to req uest t he use of a swo rn int er pr et er or t o o bject t o t he intr od uct ion o f the written tran scri pt/tran sl ati on on this ground. Pri

ort o t heir ad mission in evidence , t he v i de otap es of th e C al i xto b roth er s’ sta tem en ts an d the w ri tten tran scri ptions /tra ns l ati ons of the statem

en ts were rev i ew ed outs i dethe

pre senc e of t he jury by the interpret er who pr epared t he transcriptions, a second i nterpreter, Off

ic er Cam pa, and appellant’s tria

l coun sel (who appel

l an t say s wa s f l uen t in Span i sh ). 2 A f ew e rr or s in the t ra nscr ipt ions werei den

ti f i ed an d c orre cte d. Th e a

ttorn ey s f or b oth defen dants then ind ica t ed t he ir sat isfact ion. Appel

la nt now cites one instance in which he c laims there was “ confusion a nd contest” regarding the English translation o f his sta

tement. The Spanish word “ cañon” used by appellant was translated in the writt en tra ns cri pt io n a s “pi ec e.” Of

fi ce r Ca mp a testi fi ed

be fo re the jury that the Spanish word literally tr anslated as “ cannon, ” but was also a slang te rm for “ arm, weapon, pistol, gun. ” Questions regarding alleged inaccuracies in a translation are issues of fact that must be settled by the trier of fact. Garcia v. State , 887 S. W. 2d

862, 875 (Tex. Cri m. App. 1994) .6 Under the circumst ances shown by this reco rd, appellant’s attorney ’sf ail ure to insist that t he pr oc edu re s o ut lined in Leal be f oll owed was not out si de the range of reas onabl e professi onal assi stance an

d doe s n ot appear to have prejudiced appe ll ant’s def en se. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 68 7 (1 984 ); Hernandez v. State , 72 6 S .W .2d

53 , 57(Tex . C ri

m . A pp . 19 86 ). P oi

n ts of error t hree an

d four are overruled. Appe llantargu es

th at th e w ri tten tra n scri pti on of h i s v i de ota ped stat em

ent was ina dmis sible f

ortwo addi

tion al reas ons. Fi

rst, he contends the t ranscription was hearsay . Tex. R. Evid. 802. Second, he contends the transcri ption was i

nad mis si ble becaus e i

t was not a written st at ement wi

thi n th e m ea ni ng of arti cle 38.2 2. Tex . Code Cri m . Proc. A

nn . art. 38.22 , §§ 1, 2 (West 1979) . Once agai

n, appel la nt acknowl edges that t hese al le ged errors were not preserved f or review and u rg es t hat his tr ial cou nsel wa s ineffect ive for t hat re aso n.

A def endan t’s own out- of-court st atemen t is n ot hearsay

when off ered ag ain st him. Te x. R. E vid. 80 1(e )( 2)( A); Trevino v. State , 991 S.W.2d

849 , 8 53 ( Te x. C rim. App . 1 999 ). The opi ni on ci ted b y appe l l an t, Moore v. St

ate , 999 S.W.2d 385, 401 (Tex. Crim . App. 1999) , doe s n ot ho ld to the c ontrary . Appe llant co nced es t hat beca use he sp ok e Sp anish, it was app ro pr iate for t he j ury to be prov i de d a tran sl ati on of hi s oral statemen

t. He ci tesno a uthori ty su ppor ti ng hi s a ss erti on that a tra ns l ati on c an not b e i n w ri ti ng , or that a

wri tten tran sl ati on of an ad m i ss i bl e or al st at ement ma de in a foreign lan guage must also be

ad m i ss i bl e a s a wri tten sta tem en t un de r ar ti cl e 3 8.2 2, s ec ti on 2. T he int er es t s s er ve d b y ar t icle 38 . 22 we r e s at isfie d w he n a pp ella nt ’s o r al s t at eme nt wa s t ak en in accordance with section 3. Counsel’s f ail ure t o o bj ect t o t he admi

ssion of the transcription on these grounds did n

ot constitute in

eff ectiveness . Points of error fi ve, si x, and s even

are overruled.3 Appellant raises this contention in a supplemental brief fil ed with this Court’ s permission. 7 Admission o

f Silvestr e Calixto ’s state

ment Appe llantco nt ends his Sixth Amend ment r ight t o c onfr ont t he wit ne ss es ag ain st him was violated by the admissi on o f Sil vestr e Calix

to ’s statement to t he polic e. 3 U.S. Const. am end. VI. Appe llantconcedes that no obj ection on thi s ground was voiced at t rial, bu t ur ges t hat t he “ righ t not recogniz ed” exception to the cont emporaneous o bj ection rule appli es because the

opi ni on on whi ch he r elie s ha d n o t be en an no un ce d a t t he t ime o f his t r ial.

As a ge ne r al r ul e, ev en er r o r s o f c o ns t it ut io na l d imen sio n mu st be pr es er ve d b y a trial objec t ion. Tex. R. App. P. 33. 1(a )( 1); see Mar in v. State , 851 S.W.2d 275, 279-80 (T ex. Cri m. A pp. 1993) . There i s an

exce ption to th

i s r ule f oran error i nv olv i ng a novel constituti onal clai m . M a th ews v. State , 76 8 S .W .2d

73 1, 7 33 (Tex . C ri

m . A pp . 19 89 ). A

de f en da n t doe s n ot f orf ei t h i s r i gh t to ass erta co nst itu t ional vio latio n by fail ing t o o bject if the c ons t itu t ional r ight had n ot been recogniz ed at the time of h

is trial . Id . (quot in

g Ex parte Chamb ers , 688 S.W.2d 483, 486 (Tex. Crim . App. 1985)(Cam

pbe l l , J., con

curri ng) ). The Six th Am endm ent confrontation guaran

tee was held applicable agains t the states in 1965. Pointer v. Texas , 380 U.S. 400, 406 (1965). In 1968, t he ad miss io n of a nont est ify ing cod efendant’s out -of-court statement i mpl ic ating the defen dant was he ld

to vi ol atethe Con f ron tation Cl ause. Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S . 12 3, 1 26 ( 196 8). It ca nn ot be sa i d that the adm

i ss i on of Sil vestre’s out-of-court statement rai sed a previ ously unrecogni

zed Si xth Am endm ent is sue.4 B ecause appellant does not challenge the sufficien cy of the e

vidence , we do not revie w it in detail in this opinion. 8

Appe llantre li es on t his Co ur t ’s o pinion in Mendez v . State , 5 6 S .W. 3d 8 80 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us t in

Sep. 13, 2001, p et. f

i l ed). In t hat cas e, an o ut -o f-co ur t cus t od ial sta t ement impli cat ing t he de f en da nt i n th e c ha rge d of f en se , m ad e b y a d ec l ara nt w ho wasnot

t he defen dant, was i

ntroduced pur sua nt to the

he ars ay exce ption for stat emen

ts against the penal i

nterest of the declarant. Tex. R. Evid. 803(24). We hel

d that under the circum

stances of tha

t case , t he ad mission o f the st at ement vi ola ted the def endan t’s Si xth Am endm en t conf rontation ri

ght. Mendez , 56 S.W.3d at 892-93. In re aching that conclusi

on, we appli

ed pr inciples pr eviou sly annou nced by the co ur t o f cr iminal a pp ea ls butnot pr eviou sly applied t o a st at ement made d ur ing cus t od ial inter ro gat ion. Id . at 889, see Guidry
v. State , 9 S . W. 3d 13 3, 14 7- 49 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 9); Dew berr y v. State , 4 S.W.3d 735, 750-52 (T ex. Crim. App. 199 9); Cofield v. State , 89 1 S . W. 2d 95 2, 95 5- 57 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1994). In other
w ord s, Mendez

di d n ot crea te a n ew con sti tuti on al ri gh t b ut m er el y appl i ed estab l i sh ed Si xth Am endm ent prin ci ple s to a new factual

setting. We hold t hat ap pellan

t’s fail ure t o o bject to the ad mission of Silv estr e Calix

to ’s st at ement on

Si xth A men dm en t g round s f

ore closesour cons i derati on of thi s poi nt of error. See Dewberry , 4 S.W.3d at 752. Al though appella

nt does not argue t hat

his tr ial att or ney was ineffec t ive f orfai li ng to o bj ect, t he record would not support such a conc lus ion. The re wa s c o nsid er ab le c irc ums tantial

evi den ce ten di ng to i m pli cate a ppel l an t as a p arty

to Rodri guez ’sm

urder. 4 Furtherm ore, app ellant’ s o wn st at ement t o t he police descri bed h is in volv em ent in the murder i

n m uch t he sam e way as Si l v estre ’s sta tem en t. O n th i s rec ord , c ounse l ’s

f ai l ur e to obj ec t to the

ad m i ss i on9

of Sil vestre’s stateme

nt cann ot be sai d to have prejudi

ced appe l l an t’s de f ense to s uc h a deg re e a s to have den i ed h i m a f ai r tri al . See Strickland

, 466 U.S . at 687 ; Hernandez , 726 S.W.2dat 57; see also Schneble v. Florida , 405 U .S. 427, 4 30-32(1972 ) (Bruton error h eld ha rm l ess ). Appellant’s suppl em ental point of error is ove

rruled. Other points of error

Appe llantco nt ends t he evide nce r aised t he que sti on of whether Ef

ren and D oro teo Ca l i xto were acc omp lice witne sses who se t est imony req uire d co rr obo ra t ion. SeeT ex . Co de Cr im. Proc. A n n . a rt. 38.14 (West 1979). Appella nt argues that t hi s question s hould h ave b een sub

mi tt ed to th e j ur y as a f ac t i ss ue , a n d th at h i s a ttorn ey wa s i n ef f ec ti v e f or f ai l i n g to req ue st i t. An accompl ic e wit ness is o ne who pa

rti ci pa teswi th th e d ef en da nt b ef ore, dur i ng , or after the c omm

i ssi on of the cri me. McFar

land v. State , 928 S. W.2d 482, 514 (Tex. Crim . App. 1996) . Thi s p arti

ci pa ti on m us t i nv ol ve an af f i rm ati ve ac t orcom

m i ss i on b y th e wi tn es s to pr om

ote the comm is si on of the off

ense. Id . Ha ving kn o wle dg e o f a c r ime a nd failing t o dis clo se it doe s n ot ma ke one a n accom pli ce. Blake v. Stat

e , 971 S.W .2d 451 , 454 (Tex. Cri m . App. 199 8) . T o be subj ect t o t he ac co mplic e w it ne ss rule , a w it ne ss mus t be su sc ep t ible t o pr o se cu t io n fo rt he sa me off en se f or whi ch the accus ed i s on tri

al . McFarland

, 928 S.W.2d at 514. Wh en t he ev ide nc e c lea r ly sho ws t ha t a w it ne ss wa s a n a cc o mplic e t o t he cr ime as a ma tt er of law , t he tria

l court m ust so i nstruct the j ury . Blake , 971 S.W.2d at 455. But if the evi dence is co nfli ct ing and it i s not clear wh ether the witne ss was an

acc omp lice, t he co ur t sho uld allo w t he5 Appellant r efer s us to other statements by Efr en, but they we re made outs ide the jury’s presence. 10 j ury to de term

i ne the que sti on as a n issue of f act. Id . Thi s i s what appel la nt cla im s shoul d have been done here. We have alrea dy mentio ned E fren C alixto ’s t est imony desc ribing t he co nver sat ion he overh eard i n w hi ch appe l l an t an d Si l ve stre i nd i ca ted the i r i nte nti on to “get even

fo rt his p r o ble m” in Mexi co. 5 We h

ave also men

tioned Dorot eo Cali

xto’s testim

ony de scri

bi ng Silv estre’ s announce d int en t io n t o kill R o dr igu ez . Do r o t eo als o t es t ified t ha t ap pe llant t o ld h im he w as an gr y abo ut t he ir cou sin’s m urder i n M exi co. Fi

na l l y , there wastesti mony that on th e m orni ng of the m urder, Si l ve stre calle d Efr en and t old him, in effect, t hat he had killed Ro dr iguez . At t he ve ry m ost , this

evi dence shows t ha t E fr en an d D o r o t eo kn ew t ha t ap pe llant an d S ilves t r e in t en de d t o kill R o dr ig uez . T he evi dence does not even suggest that Efren or Dorot eo aff irm ative ly actedto prom

ote the c om

m i ss i on of the of f en se or that ei

ther of them could be prosec uted f or Rodriguez ’sm

urder. No fact is sue was rai sed as to whether Efren and Dorot eo Ca

l i x to were accompl

ic e witnesses, an

d a ppe l l an t’s tri al cou ns el wa s n ot i ne f f ec ti ve f orfaili ng t o r equ est t he su bmission o f the question to the jury . Points of error one and two are o verrul ed.

Next , a ppe llant co nt ends t he dist rict co ur t co mmented on t he we ight of t he evi dence by in structing the j ury i

n i ts charge: Wi tnessesma

y b e i mpe ached b

y s howin g that t hey

have m ade o t her and different sta

tem en ts ou t of cou rt f rom thos e m ad e b ef ore y ou on the tri al . You may consider su ch imp ea ch ing ev id en ce , if a ny, as it may tend t o a ffect t he weight t o be given t he t est imony

o f t he wit ne ss es so impe ac he d a nd t he ir c r ed ibilit y (if it does do11

so ); bu t suc h impeaching e vidence , if any, is no t t o be co nsider ed by you as t ending to establ is h the al le ged gui lt of the def

endan t, o r any fact i n the case . Appe llantar gu es t ha t t he inst ruc t io n imp r o pe r ly sin gle d out those witnes ses wh o may have m ade pri ori n con siste n t sta tem en ts and sug ges ted they

may be l ess worthy of b el i ef . See T ex . Co de Cr im. Proc. A n n . a rt. 36.14 ( West Su pp . 20 02 ) ( t r ial c o ur t may no t co mment o n w eig ht o f ev ide nc e in charge) . A

pp el l an t di d n ot ob j ec t to t he instruct ion, but urges t hat it was fundam entall y erroneous. See Almanz

a v. State , 686 S.W .2d 157 , 171 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1985 ) (op. on reh’ g). Eviden ce ad mitt ed o nly f or impeachment pur po ses is w itho ut pr oba t ive value a nd ca nn ot be cons i dered

as e vi den ce of the def endan t’s gu i l t. Key v. State , 492 S. W.2 d 51 4, 516 (T ex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 73 ) . Whe n e vid ence i s ad mitt ed fo r a lim ited pur po se, t he co ur t may rest rict t he evi dence to its proper scope and i

nstruct the jury accordingl y. Tex. R. Evid. 105 (a ). By li miting t he j ury ’s con si de rati on of t he impeac hing evidenc e “if any,” t he cha rg e ap plied t he l aw to th e f ac ts to the extent i

t was possib le

to do so without comm

entin g on the weight of the evi dence. See Brooks
v. State , 580 S.W.2d 825, 833 (Tex. Crim . App. 197 9); Easter v . State , 8 67 S .W. 2d 9 29, 941 (T ex. App. —Wac o 1 993 , p et . r ef’d) . Finding no er ro r, we o ver ru le po int o f err or t en.

Fi na l l y , ap pe l l an t con ten dstha t i f the err ors of cou ns el pre vi ous l y di scus se d di

d n ot ind ividua lly

constitute in

eff ectiveness , the cumul

ative eff ect of the errors did. We h ave alread

y determi ned t hat none o f the er ro rs a lleged by ap pellant was in fact er ro r; a ct ions o r o missions by counsel that are not er roneous cannot constitute ine ff ec tivenes s, w

he the r con si de red si ngl y or col l ec ti ve l y . W e h ave al so determ

i ne d that on

e a rguab l e error

by cou n se l n ot al l eg ed b y appe l l an t, the f ai l ure to obj ec t to Bruton error, was harm le ss. Poin t o f error ele

ven is overruled.12 The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Lee Yeakel, Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Ye akel

an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: Decem

ber 20, 2001 Publish