### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00086-CR
Blake Bowser , Appellant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331S T JUDICIAL DIST RICT

NO. 000077, H ONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

A j ury f ou n d a pp el l an t Bl ake B ows er

gui l ty of m ur de r a n d a ss es se d p un

i sh men t a t impriso nment f

or forty -two y ears . See Tex. Pen. Code Ann . § 19. 02 (West 19 94 ). A pp el l an t’s courtappoin ted atto rney

fi le d a b r ief c o nc lud ing t ha t t his appeal is fri volous an d without meri

t. The brief mee t s t he r eq uir eme nt s o f Anders v. California , 386 U .S. 738 (1 967), by presenti ng a profes si onal eval ua ti on of t he r eco rd demo nst ra t ingwh y there are n o arguabl e groun

ds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio , 48 8 U. S. 75 ( 198 8); High v. State , 5 73 S .W. 2d 8 07 ( Te x. Cri m . App. 1978 ); Curr

ie
v . St ate , 51 6 S. W.2d 684 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 74) ; Jacks on v. State , 48 5 S . W. 2d 55 3 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 197 2); Gainous

v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137(Tex . Cri m . App. 1969 ). Appe llantfi

le d a pro se b ri ef

ra i si n g s ev en tee n poi n ts o f er ror. Th e f

i rs t si x poi n ts co mpla in of the ad m i ss i on of test im ony over hearsay an

d confrontat ion obj ections. The t est imony2

ide ntif ie d by appe l l an t was p roperl

y adm i tted pursua

nt to t he exc ited ut t er ance exce pt ion t o t he hearsay rul e. T ex . R. Ev i d. 8 03( 2). Thi s e xc ep ti on is fi rml y rooted, an

d th us the re w asno v

i ol ati on of appe l l an t’s c onf rontati on ri

ght. Salazar

v. State , 38 S. W. 3d 14 1, 15 5 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 2001 ). Pro se points of error one thro ugh si x are overrul ed. Poi n ts sev en through si xtee n c once rn app ellant’ s video t ape d st at ement to the police, wh ich wa s a dmit t ed in

evi dence. He urgesthat various statemen ts made on the tape by

the off ic er que st ioning hi

m were hearsay or violations of appell ant’s confrontat ion right. I n counsel’ s Anders br ief, he ex pla ins w hy an y er r o rin t he ad mi ss io n o f a ppe llant’s s t at ement (o r p or t ions o f the sta tem en t) were harm

le ss. Counsel

notes t hat app ellant t est ifi ed a nd ad mitt ed bo t h sho ot ing t he vic t im and hi s in

volvem ent in ex traneo us misconduct . We agree with counse lth at i f porti ons of appellant’s sta

tem en t we re e rron eou sl y ad m i tted, the err orwas harm

le ss be yond a re as on ab l e doub

t. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(a). Pro se poin ts of error seven through si xteen are overruled. Fi na lly, appe l l an

t con ten dsh i s tr i al attor n ey wa s i n ef f ec ti v e f or f ai l i n g to r eq ue st a mi strial when ce rtai n h ea rs ay obj ec ti ons

we re ov err uled . A m i stri al i s c al l ed f or wh en the re i s error so prej udi ci al that con tin uati on of the tri al would be f uti l e. Ladd v. State , 3 S. W.3 d 54 7, 567 (T ex. Cr im. A pp . 19 99 ). O n

th i s rec ord , w e c an

n ot s tate that counsel ’s f

ai lure to request a mi strial was such a s erious err

or th at he w asnot f

un cti oni ng ef f ec ti ve l y ascou ns el or th at th

i s error prejudi ced appellant’s defen

se to such a d egree that he wasdepri

ve d of a f ai r tri al . See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984 ); Hernan dez v. Sta te , 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Pro se poin

t o f error seven

teen i s overruled.3 We have reviewed the r eco rd, cou nsel’s b ri ef , a n d th e p ro s e b ri ef . W e a gr ee wi th coun sel that the appe al i s f ri vol ous an d wi thout m eri t. The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

Mack Ki dd, Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Ye ak el

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

10, 2002 Do No t Publis

h