0
737
Hiram Licea
WILLIAMSON
00-3955-2
ROBERT F. B. (SKIP) MORSE

The State challenges our jurisdiction, pointing out that the fine does not exceed $100and Licea does not challenge the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted.  SeeTex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.03 (West Supp. 2001).  The State fails to notice that thejurisdictional limitation contained in article 4.03 applies only to cases tried in an inferior court andappealed do novo to the county court at law.  This Court has jurisdiction of the appeal.

Licea represents himself on appeal.  His first issue asserts that the complainant wascoached during her testimony by a victim services coordinator for the Williamson County Sheriff'sDepartment.  As proof, Licea refers to an affidavit prepared by his trial counsel attached as anappendix to his brief.  Licea did not file a motion for new trial and the affidavit was not introducedin evidence.  Affidavits and documents attached to an appellate brief are not part of the record andmay not be considered.  Pollan v. State, 612 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Bowler v.State, 822 S.W.2d 334, 334 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1992, pet. ref'd).  Issue one is overruled.

In issue two, Licea contends he was denied a fair trial because the court did not ruleon three pretrial motions.  Counsel announced ready for trial and there is no showing in the recordthat these motions were brought to the attention of the court for a ruling.  We further note that oneof the motions was for the production of exculpatory or mitigating evidence; prior to trial, theprosecutor announced that the State had no such evidence.  We infer from this that the other issueswere also resolved informally by counsel.  Issue two is overruled.

Licea's final issues asks, "Did the [trial court] erroneously and improperly reach aguilty verdict based upon the false testimony of a scorned, vindictive 43-year old alleged victim when the victim realized the 32-year old appellant wanted to end their relationship forever and askedfor his $5000 ring back and had to take her to small claims court to get the ring back?"  The defensecalled Licea and two other witnesses who contradicted the complainant's testimony.  It was for thecourt, as trier of fact, to determine the credibility of all the witnesses and the weight to give theirtestimony.  See Bonham v. State, 680 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Castellano v. State,810 S.W.2d 800, 807 (Tex. App.--Austin 1991, no pet.); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04(West 1979).  There is no evidence that the complainant perjured herself.  A decision is notmanifestly unjust because the fact-finder resolved conflicting views of the evidence in the State'sfavor.  Roise v. State, 7 S.W.3d 225, 233 (Tex. App.--Austin 1999, pet. ref'd).  Issue three isoverruled.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

				__________________________________________

				Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed:   June 7, 2001

Do Not Publish

0
737
Hiram Licea
WILLIAMSON
00-3955-2
ROBERT F. B. (SKIP) MORSE

The State challenges our jurisdiction, pointing out that the fine does not exceed $100and Licea does not challenge the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted.  SeeTex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.03 (West Supp. 2001).  The State fails to notice that thejurisdictional limitation contained in article 4.03 applies only to cases tried in an inferior court andappealed do novo to the county court at law.  This Court has jurisdiction of the appeal.

Licea represents himself on appeal.  His first issue asserts that the complainant wascoached during her testimony by a victim services coordinator for the Williamson County Sheriff'sDepartment.  As proof, Licea refers to an affidavit prepared by his trial counsel attached as anappendix to his brief.  Licea did not file a motion for new trial and the affidavit was not introducedin evidence.  Affidavits and documents attached to an appellate brief are not part of the record andmay not be considered.  Pollan v. State, 612 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Bowler v.State, 822 S.W.2d 334, 334 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1992, pet. ref'd).  Issue one is overruled.

In issue two, Licea contends he was denied a fair trial because the court did not ruleon three pretrial motions.  Counsel announced ready for trial and there is no showing in the recordthat these motions were brought to the attention of the court for a ruling.  We further note that oneof the motions was for the production of exculpatory or mitigating evidence; prior to trial, theprosecutor announced that the State had no such evidence.  We infer from this that the other issueswere also resolved informally by counsel.  Issue two is overruled.

Licea's final issues asks, "Did the [trial court] erroneously and improperly reach aguilty verdict based upon the false testimony of a scorned, vindictive 43-year old alleged victim when the victim realized the 32-year old appellant wanted to end their relationship forever and askedfor his $5000 ring back and had to take her to small claims court to get the ring back?"  The defensecalled Licea and two other witnesses who contradicted the complainant's testimony.  It was for thecourt, as trier of fact, to determine the credibility of all the witnesses and the weight to give theirtestimony.  See Bonham v. State, 680 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Castellano v. State,810 S.W.2d 800, 807 (Tex. App.--Austin 1991, no pet.); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04(West 1979).  There is no evidence that the complainant perjured herself.  A decision is notmanifestly unjust because the fact-finder resolved conflicting views of the evidence in the State'sfavor.  Roise v. State, 7 S.W.3d 225, 233 (Tex. App.--Austin 1999, pet. ref'd).  Issue three isoverruled.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

				__________________________________________

				Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed:   June 7, 2001

Do Not Publish