1 We quote app ellant’ s points of er ror o ne, two, a

nd eleve n as f

ollows: (One) The T rial C ourt Erred

by Denying Appella

nt Due Proc ess o f Law under Both the 5th a

nd 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Due Course of Law Clause of Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution by Refusing to Provide an Appealable Pre- trial ProceduralVehicle 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

44444444444

4444 NO. 03-99-00084-CR

44444444444

4444 Jess e Monroe , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF CALDWELL COUNT Y, 22ND JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 95-020, HO NORABLE WIL LIAM E. BE NDER, JUDGE PRESIDING

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 Ap pel l an t Jess e Mon

roe was conv i cted of the of f en ses of rob bery an d b urg l ary of a habita t ion. SeeTex. Penal Code Ann . §§ 29.02(a)(2) , 30.02(a)(1) (d) (We st 1994 & Su pp. 200 0). The tri al co ur t asse ssed app ellant’ s pu nishment fo r e ach o ffense, enhanc ed by t wo pr ior felony convicti ons, at i

m pri son men t f or l i f e. In el ev en poi n ts o f er ror, appe l l an

t r aises i ssu es o f do ub le j eop ardy an d al l eg ed er ron eou s r ul i n gsof th e tr i al cou rt. W e wi l l af f i rm th e j udgm

en t. We mus t o verrul e appella

nt’s f irst, second, and e le

ven t h points of erro r because defi ci enci es in t he record preclude thei

r appell ate revie w. 1 In these thre e po ints of err or , app ell ant’sfor Appe llant to Appea l His Double Je opard y Claims Prior

to Trial. (Two) The Trial Court Erred by Denying Appellant Due Process of Law under both the 5t

h and 14th Amendm ent of the U.S. Constitution and the Due Course of Law Clause of Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution in Denying Appellants Plea in Bar Because Double JeopardyNow Attaches at the Parole Hearing and Bars Fur ther Prosecution of

this Appellant (Eleven) App ellan t’s convictions for r obbery and aggra

vated burglary violate the c onstitut io nal prohibition against double jeopardy a s provided in the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Sections 3, 3a, 8, 13 and 14 of the Texas Constitution. 2 ba sic content ion i s t hat his p ro se cu t io n, co nvict io n, and pu nishme nt fo r r o bbe ry a nd b ur gla ry o f a ha bi tation were doubl e-j eopardy

ba rred. Appellant contends that a failed attempt to show he had violated his parole in another ca se a nd his former conviction and punishment for aggravated sexual assa

ult were bo th base d o n t he sa me fact s and circu msta nces as his pr ese nt t rial, c onvict ion, and puni shm

ent for robbery

and b urglary of a habitation. Howev er , ap pe ll ant ’s as ser t ions a nd argum en t are not support ed by

the record. T he record bef ore us in this appeal does not incl

ude t he record of the vi olation of parole proce edi

ng or th e re cord

of tri al , con vi cti on, an d pu ni sh men t f or aggravated

se xu al a ss au lt
. Fu r t he rmo r e, t he r e is no oth er e vi de nc e i n th e re cord now b ef oreusto supp ort appella

nt’s contenti ons. Understandab ly , the man y pa ges of a ppe llant’s br ief cont aining t he
asse rt ions of

f ac t an d a rgum en t re l ati n g to these three poin

ts of error do not give a

ny page refe rences to the record. A

pp el l ate rul es re quir e t hat fact s st at ed in ap pellat e br iefs “must be su ppo rt ed by record references.” Tex. R. App. P . 38.1 (f). “The bri ef m ust co nt ain a clea r a nd

co ncise ar gument f ort he content ions m

ade, with appro priate citations . . . t o t he record.” Id
. Ru le 3 8. 1( h)
. A br ief is3

i n adeq ua te i f i t doe s n ot f ol l owt he appe l l ate rul

es a nd r ef er to page num bers i n the rec ord to support t he facts ass erted and the argume nts m ade, and the

errors clai

med are not rev i ewabl e. E.g., A ldrich
v. State, 92 8 S . W. 2d 55 8, 56 0 n . 2 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 6); Alvarado v. State , 912 S.W.2d 199, 210 (T ex. Crim. App. 199 5); Narva iz v. Sta te, 840 S. W.2d 415 , 42 9 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 92) ; Reed v. State, 927 S.W .2d 289 , 291 (Tex. A pp.—F ort Worth 19 96, n o pet.). Al thoughap pe llant ha s file d a mo t io n in this Court requestin

g that we consider records in other cases , we ca

nn ot do so. See Ber

rious-To rres

v. State , 8 02 S. W.2 d 91 , 9 5- 96 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us t in

199 0, no pet .) ; You ng v. S tate, 65 0 S .W .2d 45 7, 4 59 (Tex . A

pp .—H ouston

[1 4th Di st.] 198 2, no pet .) ; see also Garz a v. State , 622 S.W.2d 85, 89- 90 ( Tex. Crim. App. 199 1); Evans
v. State , 622 S.W.2d866, 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). “Vicarious consti tut iona l a rgumen ts, without supp ort in the record, are not pro perly bef ore t he court on appeal.” Allridge v . State , 850 S.W.2d 471, 49 5 (Tex . Cri

m . App. 1991 ); Kinnamo n v. State , 79 1 S . W. 2d 84 , 94 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1990 ). Appellant’s mot ion fo r t his Co ur t t o t ake judicial not ice and po ints o f err or one , t wo , a nd el even are overruled. In

his thir d po int o f err or , a ppe llantass erts th at “th e tri al courtco mmit t ed r ev er sible
err orin deny in g a m ot ion f or mi strial after the prosecution sh

owed a chart whi

ch in cl uded the range of pun i sh men t be ca us e the p rob at ive va lu e ou twe i gh ed th e p re j udi ci al ef f ec t as th e j udge

wa s to deci de the puni shm

ent in this case.” The al

le ged error o ccurred

durin g jury voir di re. Appel la nt had el ected, i f con v i cte d, t o ha ve t he t r ial ju dg e a ss es s his puni shm ent. Al though the chart is

not incl uded in the re cord

f or app ellant’ s bill

of e xcep t ion, app ellant s ays t he cha rt abo ut which he c omp lains showed the ran geof puni shm ent for the off

enses with wh ic h he was char ged ; it sho wed a pu nishment of impriso nment for a mi

ni mum of fi fteen y ears and a max

im um of n in ety-ni ne y ears. Altho ugh t he4

chartdi d n ot sho w a pp ella nt ’s pr io rco nvic t io ns, he ar gu es t ha t t his r an ge o f pu nish men t wo uld ap ply
o nly if he h ad also b een c onv

i cte d of a p riorfel

ony of fen se. Theref

ore, appellant compl

ai ns h e was harm ed be ca us e t he jur y wo uld infe rt ha t he ha d p r ev io us ly bee n c o nvic ted o f a f el ony. The

trial courtsu sta

i n ed appe l l an t’s ob j ec ti on to t he us e o f the char t . Ap pellant t hen, wit hou t re que st ing t he Court t o ins

truct the jury

to dis regard the chart, asked for a m is trial whi ch the court de ni ed. B y faili ng t o as k fo rr eli ef appropr i ate l y , ap pe l l an t f ai l ed to pre serv e error. Th e p rope r m eth od of pr ese rving error in case s of prosecutional misconduct is to (1) object on specif ic grounds, (2) request an i nstructi on to di sreg ard, an d (3) m ove f or a m i stri al
. Penry v. State, 903 S. W.2 d 71 5, 764 (T ex. Cr im. Ap p. 1995 ); Cook v. State, 858 S. W.2d 467 , 47 3 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 93) ; Brooks v. State, 642 S.W.2d 791, 798 (Tex. Cri

m . App. 1982 ); Koller v. State, 518 S.W.2d 373, 375 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) ; Tex . R. A

pp. P. 33 .1. Th e al l eg ed

err or wa s n ot pr ese rve d fo r a ppe llate r eview. Eve n if the
err orcl ai me d had b een

properly preserved

for re view, app ellant’ s po int o f err or is witho ut merit . As long as t he St at e do es no t inform t he jur y of t he enh ancem ent alle gations, i

t may on vo ir dire t ell the j ury wh at the p ossi

bl e ran ge of pun i sh men t ma y be
. “[A] pr os ecu t or may inf or m the jury pa nel of t he rangeof punishm

ent applic abl

e i f the State were to prove aprior con victio n for enhanc ement p urpo ses, but it m

ay not inf orm the j ury of

any of the speci

fi c alle gations contai

ned i nth e enhanc ement paragraph of a parti cul ar defen dant’s i ndictmen t.” Fraus to v. State, 642 S.W.2d 506, 509 (T ex. Cri

m . A pp. 198 2). A l

thou gh the j ury may not be infor med o n voir dire of e nhance ment a ll egations, eit her t he d efe nda nt o r t he S t at e ma y qu alify pr o sp ec t ive ju ro rs o n t he fu ll range o f punishment applic abl

e to t he en

han ced off en se i n orde r to in tell i gen tly ex ercise p erem

ptory challen ges. Martinez v. State, 598 S.W.2d 954, 956-5 7 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1979 ). Ap

pel l an t’s th i rd point of error is ove

rruled.5 In hi s f our thpoi n t o f err or , a ppe llant u rg es t hat “the t rial co ur t er re d in o ver ru ling defendant’s obje ction to t he State discus sing the levels o f offense s du ring vo ir dire .” Appe llant
co mplainsof the cour t’s overr uli ng hi s objection to t he prosecut or’s dis cu ss i on of the ran ge s of pu nis hme nt and the

di f f eren ce b etween rob

bery and agg ravated rob

bery . Actuall

y , the tri al court sustain ed appe l l an t’s ob j ection. Howe

ver, appe l l an

t argues that the courto ve rrule d h is req

ue st “ f or ani ns tru ct io n t o dis r eg ar d. ” T he Co de o f Cr iminal P r o ce du r e a llo ws t he St at e t o ch alle nge a pr os pec t ivej ur or f

or c au se wh o h as a b i as or p re j udi ce ag ai n st a n y l aw up on wh i ch th e St at e is entitled to rel y f or conv i cti on or pun

i sh men t. SeeTex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 35.16( b)(3) (West Supp. 2 000). If t he evi

dence does n

ot support a co nvi

ction f or t he ch arged off ense, the State may be ent itled t o o bt ain a co nvictio n for a lesse r includ ed o ffense. The re for e, t he St at e may voir dire t he j ury panel on the le sser i

ncl uded off en se a s we l l

as the ch arged off en se. Alfano v. State, 780 S.W.2d 494, 495 ( Te x. A

pp.—C orpus Christi

1989, n o pet.). The

def en se m ay l i kewi se v oir d i re the j ury co ncer ningl ess er i

nc l uded off en ses . Santana v. State, 714 S.W.2 d 1, 10 ( Tex . Cri m . App. 1986 ). Even th oug h th e def en da n t wa i v es j ur y pu n i sh men t an d e l ec ts to h av

e pun i sh men t as sess ed by t he
cou rt, i t i s prop er f or a pr ose cu tor to v oi r di reth e j ur y on th e f ul l ra n ge of pu n i sh men t. Hunt v. State, 852 S.W.2d 278, 280 -81 (T ex. App .—D allas 1993 , no pet .) ; Lavigne v. State, 782 S.W.2d 253, 257 (T ex. App.—Houston [14th Di st.] 1989 ), aff ’d, 803 S.W .2d 302(Tex . Cri m . App. 1990 ). I n t his case, appe l l an

t wa s ch arge d w i

th ag gra va ted robbe ry bu t the j ury f oun d a ppe l l an t gui l ty of the le sser in cl uded off ense of robbery . Appel

la nt’s f ourt h poin

t o f error is

without meri

t and is overruled. Ap pel l an t, in his f i f th poi nt of error, urge s tha

t “the tria l courtco mmit t ed r ev er sible
err orwhen it per mitt ed t he Stat e to inj ect ch ar ac t er int o t he t r ial by p er mit t ing t he St at e t o as k ‘ did yo ukn ow’ qu esti on s rel

ate d to pri or a

rre sts wh ich r es ult ed in t he ap pe llant r ec eiv ing a n o bill as we ll6

as d efenda nt s pr ior co nvictio ns f rom a wi tn es s w h o di d n ot tes ti f y as to t he ap pe llant ’s ch ar ac t er in vi ol ati on o f T ex . R. Cr im. Evid. 404 (B) , 6 09( F) a nd Ar t icle 37. 07. ” App ellant’ s co mplaintrelates to th e te sti

mon y of wi tn es s C ar ter Hu tso n , w h o tes ti fi ed at an ea r lier t r ial bu t no t at t his t r ial. Hut son’s di

rect tes ti mony at the e arl

i er tr i al wa s rep rodu

ce d a nd ad m i tted i n e vi de nc e b y sti pul ati on i n th i s c as e a nd appe ars i n th i s rec ord a s D ef

en da nt’ s Ex hi bi t 2. Th e s ti pul ate d te sti mony doe s n ot include a ny

“did you kno w” q ues t ions con cern i n g p rior of

f ense s a l l eg ed l y com m i tted b y appe l l an t. T he jur y in t he pr es en t ca se did no t he ar t he “d id yo u k no w” qu es t io ns. T his point of error has no supp ort in the record

be f ore u s a nd noth i ng i s p res en ted f or revi ew . A ppe l l an t’s f i f th p oi nt of err or is overruled. In

h i s s i xth an d s ev en th poi n ts of error, appellant compl ai ns that “the tri al

court erred in ove rr uling app ellant’ s o bject ion t hat t he t est imony of t he lat ent prin t exam in er abo ut how many ot her pr ints w er e fo und on t he scisso rs w hich wer e no t suit able for co mpar ison u nder t he ‘7 po int rule’ was irre levant since t he pr oba t ive value o f the evi dence was out wei ghed b

y the hi ghl y prejudic ia

l and infl ammato ry effect of t he t est imony,” a nd that “the trial

co ur t er r ed in a dmit t ing st at e’ s e xhib it 46.” The indict ment a lleges t hat in committ ing t he robb ery appell ant used a pair of scissors. The scissors

were a dm i tted i n e vi de nc e w i thou t obj ec ti on. State ’s

Ex hi bi t 46 wasa p hotog

raph of t he sci ssors showi

ng l atent fi ngerpri nts. Whe n State’s exh

ibit 46 was off

ered in evidence, defense counsel did no t objec t but said, “St at e’s 4 6 is finewi th m e.” A l aten t fi nge rpri nt iden tif i cation ex pert testifi ed t hat fingerp rint s o n t he sc isso rs w er e smud ged and un ide nt ifiab le exce pt for t he pr ints o f the robb ery vi cti m . The e xp ert c oul

d n ot ide nt ify

any of t he pr ints a s t hos e o f the app ellant. Assuming there was prej udi ce in t he expert ’s test im ony, it did not substant ial ly out weigh the t estimony’s7

pr oba t iveva

l ue . Mor eover, an y err orot her than

constitutional

error t hat does not aff

ect substanti al ri gh ts m us t be di sreg ard ed . He re, the err or com pl ai ne d of di d n ot af f ec t appe l l an

t’s su b sta n ti al ri gh ts and m ust be di sregarded. Points of error six and sev en are overruled. In his eight h po int o f err or , a ppe llant insist s t hat “the tria l courter re d in o ver ru ling appe l l an t’s obj ec ti on th

at the Sta te s hi f ted the bu rde n of proof t o a ppe llant d ur ing t he tes ti mony of Meghan Men den ha l l , Ph.D .” App ella

nt sum ma rizes hi s contention un

der this point of error as foll ows: “In the i

nstant case the State had a problem . The key evi den ce wa s f

oun d to have been mi shan dle d by the DPS and the State found out t hat D.P.S. had fai le d to exam

in e the critical

evi dence f orevi dence that could h

ave ei ther excul

pated or des tro yed

A pp el l an t. Th e S tate atte m pte d to
re so lvethi s prob l em

by ask i ng Dr. Mend

en ha l l the seri esof que sti ons ab out wh ether or not counsel asked her to t est vari ous items of ev ide nce. This constitutes a shi fti ng of the b

urden o f p ro of a nd ha rm is presum ed. As a resul t, t hi s cause m

ust be reversed a

nd rem anded f or a ne w tri al .” In

supp ort of hi s argument, appellan

t cites Sandstrom v. Montana , 442 U.S. 510 (1979) , and Randle v. State, 826 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. Crim. App. 199 2) . I n Sandstrom , the Supreme Court held that the t rial court ’s j ury ch ar ge shift ed t he bu r de n o f pr o o f t o t he de fen da nt . T he r e w as no su ch ch ar ge in t his cas e. In Randle, the

cou rt h el d that i t wa s error

to force a def

endan t t o t rial in ja il cl ot hesbecause

it i mpa ired t he de f en da nt’ s ri gh t to the pre su m ption of inno cenc e. We find not hing in Randle co ncer ning shifting th e b ur den of pr oof to th e def

en da n t. Me nd en ha ll

did not testi

f y as a l i ve wi tnes s i n th i s ca se. How ever, a p ortion of her t est imony giv en in an earl ie r trial was reproduced and off

ered at this trial

without objection through
a wr itt en st ipulat ion o f evidence pur sua nt t o a n agr eement wit h app ellant. The re pr od uce d t est imony
was admit t ed a nd ap pea rs in t he record as Stat e’s Exh ibit 47. Al

thought he r epr od uce d t est imony8

shows appella

nt objec ted at t he earl

ie r trial that Mend enhall’s t est imony shifted t he bu rde n of proof to appella nt, appell ant did n ot obje ct and d id no t get a r uling fro m the t r ial c o ur t in t he t r ial o f t his
case. Ap pe llant did no t pr es er ve t he er r o rfo rap pe llat e r ev iew in t his case. Ho weve r, if i t co uld be
su cc es sfu lly

arg ue d that the c l ai

med err or wa s p res erv

ed f orappella te review , we hold i

t was without
meri t. The pr osec ut or ’s i

nte rrog ati on of Mend enhall co ncer ning whet her co unse l req ues t ed t hat she tes t i tem s of ev i de nc e di d n

ot shift t he burden of

proo f to appell

ant. The State st il

l h ad the burden of provi ng e ach elem en t of the off en se b ey ond a reas onab l e doubt. I t is the court ’s j ury ch arge that establ is hes the b urden of proof. Appel

la nt’s ei ghth poin t o f error is

overruled. In his te nt h po int o f err or , a ppe llantdec lares t hat “the t rial co ur t er re d and comm itted
ac ts of j udi ci al es toppe l i n r ef us i ng to pe rm i t the de f en da nt to c ros s e xamine the alleged victim by
re playing tapes of the prior testim

ony f rom the parole b oard hearin g whi ch the sam e trial judge had permi tt ed t o be pla yed in t he Ju ly 19 96 t r ial. ” A pp ella nt ar gu es t ha t “w he n t he Co ur t did no t pe r mit Appe llantto cr

oss ex am i n e [ a c er tai n wi tn es s] wi th the very sam e evi dence in the s eco nd t rial, t he courtco mmit t ed an er r o ran d w as jud icia lly estopp ed f rom re v er si n g i ts pos i ti on. ” A ppe l l an t has n ot des ignat ed t he pa ges of t he r eco rd wher e t he cl ai me d er ro r o ccu rr ed. Mo re ove r, t he r eco rd of t he fi rst trial is not a part of the record in this case. Appel

la nt has f ai le d to perfect th e rec ord an d to pr op er ly brief this po intof err or . “Under t he doc tr ine of ‘j udicial esto ppel,’ a pa r t y is bo un d b y his judi ci al dec larat ions a nd may not co nt ra dict t hem in a su bse qu en t pr o ce ed ing invo lving t he sa me is sues an d parties.” Black’s Law Dictionary 84 8 ( W est 6th ed . 19 90 ). A

pp el l an t h as f ai l ed to ci te any cas es a pplying t his do ct rine t o t he rulings o f a t r ial ju dg e. Ap pe llant ’s t en t h p o int o f er r o ris overruled. Appel

la nt aban doned hi s ni

nth poin t o f error; theref

ore, it wil l n ot be di scussed.9 The j udgme

nt is aff irm ed.

Carl

E. F. Dall

y, Jus tice Be fo r e J us t ice s J o ne s, B. A. Smit h a nd Da lly * Af fi rmed File d: Novem

ber 9, 2000 Do No t Publis

h

* Befor e Carl E. F. Dally, Judge (retired), Court of Criminal Appeals , sittin g by ass ignment. SeeTex. G ov’t C ode A nn. § 74 .003(b) (W est 199 8).