COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 02-14-00379-CR

02-14-00380-CR

02-14-00381-CR

02-14-00382-CR

RODERICK DIXON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NOS. 1352360D, 1352834D, 1352836D, 1376529W

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Roderick Dixon entered open guilty pleas to two counts of 

robbery causing bodily injury and to two counts of aggravated robbery with a 

deadly weapon, each alleged in a separate cause. The trial court found 

Appellant guilty on all counts and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement on 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

both counts of robbery and on one count of aggravated robbery and to twenty 

years’ confinement on the second count of aggravated robbery, with all 

sentences to run concurrently. In two points, Appellant argues that the trial court 

abused its discretion by admitting photographs and a video depicting extraneous 

offenses into evidence at the punishment phase of the trial. We affirm.

Background

On September 14, 2013, J.H. met with a potential buyer of a PlayStation 3

(PS3) that he had listed for sale on Craigslist. When J.H. placed the PS3 on the 

hood of the potential buyer’s car, the buyer said, “It’s been a long day,” and three 

males, one of whom was Appellant, attacked J.H. One of the attackers, who was 

not Appellant, hit J.H. multiple times in the head. The three males took the PS3 

and drove away. The lacerations from the attack on J.H.’s face and head 

required stitches.

On December 1, 2013, J.C. and his son, R.C., met with Tori Bryant, a 

potential buyer of a PlayStation 4 (PS4) they had advertised on Craigslist. While 

Bryant distracted them, Appellant, Jordan Robinson, and Manuel Torres attacked 

J.C. Appellant hit J.C. on the head with a bat while one of the other assailants 

took the PS4 and several videogames from J.C. Appellant swung the bat at R.C. 

but missed. Appellant, Robinson, and Torres fled. As a result of the attack, J.C. 

lost a large amount of blood from a wound on his forehead.

Appellant, Robinson, Torres, and Gemma Perez went together to pawn the 

stolen PS4. Appellant pawned the PS4, along with four of the games that were 
3

reported stolen in the robbery. A detective with the Fort Worth Police 

Department located the PS4 at the pawn shop. Appellant’s name was on the 

pawn ticket, and the pawn shop clerk later identified Appellant in a lineup.

After the December 1 robbery, Appellant, Robinson, Torres, and Perez

purchased a Taser and a rubber pellet gun. On December 4, 2013, J.G. and his 

girlfriend met with a potential buyer of a PS4 he had posted for sale on Craigslist. 

Perez drove Appellant, Torres, Robinson, and Bryant to and from the meeting in 

Perez’s sister’s car. J.G. parked next to their vehicle in a mall parking lot, placed 

the PS4 on the car’s hood, and discussed the transaction with Perez. One of the 

males from Perez’s car approached J.G. from behind; tased him on his neck;

yelled, “You’re getting jacked”; mentioned having a gun; and tased J.G. on his 

left hand. Torres pointed the pellet gun at J.G. and demanded the PS4. Torres 

yelled to Appellant and Robinson to “[g]et the knife.” J.G. surrendered the PS4,

and the assailants fled in Perez’s sister’s car. J.G. and his girlfriend pursued 

them in his vehicle and called 911. They were able to get the license plate 

number on Perez’s sister’s car. After the 911 dispatcher told J.G. to discontinue 

his pursuit, they returned to the mall, where they met with police officers and 

gave them the license plate number. Mall surveillance video captured the 

robbery. The license plate on Perez’s sister’s car belonged to a vehicle 

registered to Perez’s mother.

On December 5, 2013, the detective who located the PS4 at the pawn 

shop determined Appellant had outstanding warrants and went to the apartment 
4

where Appellant was living at the time. S.M.—who identified herself as 

Appellant’s ex-girlfriend2—was at the apartment, but Appellant was not. The 

detective showed S.M. the pawn shop surveillance video, and she identified 

Appellant as the person pawning the PS4. She also identified Bryant and 

Robinson.

Appellant was arrested at the apartment on December 12, 2013. During a 

consensual search of the apartment, the detective discovered a Taser, along with 

the cap Appellant was wearing when he pawned the PS4. Appellant waived his 

rights and confessed to committing the three robberies, striking J.C. with a 

baseball bat, pawning J.C.’s PS4, and purchasing the pellet gun and Taser with 

Robinson, Torres, and Perez. The detective obtained a warrant to search 

Appellant’s car and found the bat and its sales receipt inside. Appellant stated 

he was under the influence of marijuana at the time he committed the robberies 

and that he needed the money for food and shelter.

At the punishment phase of the trial, the trial court admitted into evidence a 

Presentence Investigation Report, which contained, among other things, the 

events set forth above, and heard testimony from the detective, Appellant’s 

stepmother, his father, and S.M. Over Appellant’s relevance objection, the trial 

court admitted into evidence a YouTube video posted on Bryant’s YouTube 

channel and screenshots of Bryant’s YouTube profile page with links to videos 

 

2S.M. testified during the punishment phase of the trial that she and 

Appellant considered themselves boyfriend and girlfriend.
5

that she had either commented on or uploaded, which included a link to the 

YouTube video.3 The video showed Appellant, Robinson, Bryant, Randal Bracy,

4

and S.M. having what S.M. described as a “little kick back” in a hotel room, which 

involved “studio time” and smoking and drinking. Appellant was smoking what 

appeared to be “some sort of hand-rolled item,” and the parties were discussing 

drinking codeine, which the detective testified was an illegal drink made by 

“mix[ing] 25 times the amount of codeine cough syrup in with . . . Sprite, 

Mountain Dew, et cetera, to kind of give them a high.” They were also rapping 

and using racial slurs. The trial court also admitted a screenshot of S.M.’s 

Facebook cover photo in which Appellant appeared to be displaying gang colors 

and flashing a gang sign.5

Standard of Review

We review the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2966 (2011); De La Paz v. State, 279 

S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). As long as the trial court’s ruling falls 

 

3

The State explained to the trial court that the purpose of these 

screenshots was to show “how to get to the video.”

4

The detective identified Appellant, Robinson, Bryant, and Bracy in the 

video. Bracy was one of the participants in the September 2013 robbery. Bracy, 

Bryant, Perez, Robinson, and Torres were charged for their participation in the 

robberies.

5S.M. testified that Appellant claimed to be part of the Tree Top gang.
6

within the zone of reasonable disagreement, we will affirm the trial court’s 

decision. Martinez, 327 S.W.3d at 736; Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622, 627 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

Analysis

In a consolidated argument, Appellant contends the trial court abused its 

discretion by admitting over his relevance objections the screenshots and the 

video because they were not taken in temporal proximity to the offenses and their

minimal probity, if any, was substantially outweighed by their unfair prejudice. 

See Tex. R. Evid. 401, 403.

To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to the 

trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific grounds 

for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the request, 

objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Everitt v. State, 407 S.W.3d 

259, 262–63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Sanchez v. State, 418 S.W.3d 302, 306 

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, pet. ref’d). Further, the trial court must have ruled 

on the request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly, or the 

complaining party must have objected to the trial court’s refusal to rule. Tex. R. 

App. P. 33.1(a)(2); Everitt, 407 S.W.3d at 263. A reviewing court should not 

address the merits of an issue that has not been preserved for appeal. Ford v. 

State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Preservation of error is a 

systemic requirement that this court should review on its own motion. Reynolds 
7

v. State, 423 S.W.3d 377, 383 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Gipson v. State, 383 

S.W.3d 152, 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

When the State offered into evidence a screenshot of S.M.’s Facebook 

cover photo in which Appellant appeared to be displaying gang colors and 

flashing a gang sign, the trial court asked Appellant if he had any objection to the 

exhibit. Appellant stated that he did not. Because Appellant did not object to the 

admission of the Facebook cover photo, he has forfeited any complaint that the 

trial court abused its discretion in admitting it into evidence. See Tex. R. App. P. 

33.1(a)(1); Tex. R. Evid. 103(a).

As to the YouTube evidence, the State argues that Appellant’s trial 

objection did not preserve his arguments under rule 403. Appellant asserts on 

appeal that the probative value of the screenshots of Bryant’s YouTube channel

and the video was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. See Tex. R. 

Evid. 403. But Appellant only objected to the admission of the screenshots and 

the video on relevancy grounds. See Tex. R. Evid. 401. His trial objection did 

not alert the trial court that he was complaining that their prejudicial effect

outweighed their probative value. See Bekendam v. State, 441 S.W.3d 295, 300 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“The complaining party must [object] . . . clearly enough 

for the judge to understand and at a time when the trial court is in a position to do 

something about it. . . . We are not hyper-technical . . . but the point of error on 

appeal must comport with the objection made at trial.”). Accordingly, Appellant

has forfeited his complaint that the probative value of the screenshots and the 
8

video was outweighed by their prejudicial effect. See Sony v. State, 307 S.W.3d 

348, 355–56 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.) (holding relevance 

objection to photographs at trial did not preserve appellate argument based on 

rule 403); see also Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Tex. R. Evid. 103(a). 

We now turn to Appellant’s argument that the video and the screenshots of 

Bryant’s YouTube channel were not relevant because “they could not be 

identified to be taken in temporal proximity to the offenses.” The detective 

testified that he did not know when the video was made and that he did not know 

if the video was associated with the robbery. S.M. testified that the video 

“happened last year, but it was before any of these robberies occurred.” The 

punishment trial took place on September 5, 2014, and the robberies occurred in 

September and December 2013. Thus, the video was made, at most, 

approximately nine months before the first robbery.

Article 37.07, section 3(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 

governs the admissibility of evidence during the punishment phase of a noncapital case. Sims v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07, § 3(a) (West Supp. 2015). Article 37.07, 

section 3(a)(1) provides that 

evidence may be offered by the [S]tate and the defendant as to any 

matter the court deems relevant to sentencing, including but not 

limited to the prior criminal record of the defendant, his general 

reputation, his character, an opinion regarding his character, the 

circumstances of the offense for which he is being tried, and . . . any 

other evidence of an extraneous crime or bad act that is shown 

beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence to have been committed by 
9

the defendant or for which he could be held criminally responsible, 

regardless of whether he has previously been charged with or finally 

convicted of the crime or act.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07, § 3(a)(1). The definition of “relevant” as 

stated in rule 401 does not readily apply to article 37.07. Sims, 273 S.W.3d at 

295; see Hayden v. State, 296 S.W.3d 549, 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) 

(“Borrowing from the definition of ‘relevant’ in Texas Rule of Evidence 401 is of 

little avail because the factfinder’s role during the guilt phase is different from its 

role during the punishment phase.”). Evidence is “relevant” to a punishment 

determination if that evidence will assist the factfinder in tailoring an appropriate 

sentence in a particular case. Sims, 273 S.W.3d at 295. When a defendant 

requests community supervision—as the Appellant did—a trial court may 

reasonably deem any character trait that pertains to the defendant’s suitability for 

community supervision to be a relevant matter for the sentencer to consider. 

Sims, 273 S.W.3d at 295. 

Section 3(a)(1) of article 37.07 places no time restriction on punishment 

evidence. See Thompson v. State, 59 S.W.3d 802, 808–09 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07,

§ 3(a)(1). “The provisions of article 37.07 do not address the effects, if any, of a 

statute of limitations for previous criminal offenses nor do they address the 

staleness of bad acts.” Tow v. State, 953 S.W.2d 546, 547–48 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth 1997, no pet.). Objections based on remoteness go to the weight, not the 
10

admissibility, of the evidence. See Thompson, 59 S.W.3d at 808 (citing Nethery

v. State, 692 S.W.2d 686, 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)).

Here, Appellant’s conduct and lifestyle, as reflected in the YouTube video,

were relevant in determining whether his request for community supervision 

should be granted. The time between the events reflected in the video and the 

offenses to which Appellant pled guilty did not make the video so remote as to 

have no probative value. Thus, we cannot say the trial court abused its 

discretion by admitting the YouTube video and the screenshots of Bryant’s 

YouTube channel into evidence at the punishment phase of the trial.

For these reasons, Appellant’s two points are overruled.6

Conclusion

Having overruled both of Appellant’s points on appeal, we affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.

/s/ Anne Gardner

ANNE GARDNER

JUSTICE

PANEL: GARDNER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 18, 2016

 

6Appellant relies heavily on Blackburn v. State, 820 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. 

App.—Waco 1991, pet. ref’d). Blackburn involved the relevancy of a photograph 

admitted into evidence during the guilt-innocence phase of a trial. After 

reviewing Blackburn, we have determined that it is inapplicable to this case.