### NUM BER 13-06- 532- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
JACK H OLLA ND , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 6th D istrict Co urt of A rans as Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Aft e r a j u r y t r i a l , a p p e l l a n t , J a c kH o l l a n d , w a s c o n v i c t e d o f fe l o n y c r i mi n a l m i s c h i e f. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 28. 03( a) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. The tr ial co urt as ses sed puni shmentat tw o y ears’ c o n f in ement, no fine, and $14,125 .00 i n rest it uti on. See i d. § 28.03( b) (4 )( A) , ( e) ; Id. § 28.06( b) (V er non 2003)

. By three i ss ues, appel lan t c ontends that : (1 ) the e v ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t hi s c onv icti on; ( 2) the tr ialT he Ei gh t h A m en dm ent pr ov i des t hat no cr uel and unu sual pun i shm ent shal l be i nf l i ct ed o n 1 i nd i v i du al s. U. S. C ON ST
. a m e n d . V III

. It i s a p p l i c a b l e to th e s ta te s b y a n d th ro u g h th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. S e e R o b in s o n v . C a lifo r n ia , 37 0 U

. S

. 66 0, 66 7 (19 62 ). It w a s u n d i s p u te d a t t ria l th a t M i c h e l l e B re a u x w a s a p p e l l a n t’ s e x -w i fe . A t tria l , s h e w a s re fe rr e d to 2 bot h as M i chel l e Hol l and and as M i chel l e Br eaux, herm ai den nam e.

I t was est abl i shed at t r i al t hat Ji m m y Jone s i s Br eaux’ s boy f r i end. 3 La rr y P ark er t es t i fi ed t ha t he i s Bre au x ’ s ne x t -do or ne i gh bo r. 4 2 cour t er re d i n fail ing to re v iew recorded t ele phone c onv ersat ion s b etw een app ell ant a nd Michelle Bre aux fo r relevancy and object iona ble con duct , as requeste d in app ellant ’s mo tion in limin e; an d (3) appe llant’s sen ten ce is dispropo rtion a t e t o t h e se v erityof his offenses i n v iolation of the Ei g hth a nd F our teent h Amendment s t o the U nit ed St ates Con sti tuti on. See U .S. C ON ST . am en ds

. VI II , X IV

. W e affi r m. 1 I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On July 25, 200 6, ap pellan t w as indicte d for felon y criminal misch ief , a state jail felony

. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 28. 03( a) (1 ). The i ndi ctmentprov ide d, i n rele v ant par t: JACK H OLLA ND
on or aboutthe 15 day

of Ma y , A.D

. 2006 and anter ior to the p re sent ment th of this indictm ent , in the Cou n t y a n d S tate aforesa id, did th en a nd th ere in te n ti o n a lly or

kn o w ing ly , i n a co n ti n u in g co u rse of crim in a l co n d u ct , d a m a ge or destro y

tangible prop erty, to w it: a Hond a aut om obile ow ned byMichelle Breaux ,[ ] a Ford Pi ck up and Bay li ner boatow ned byJimmy

Jones, [ ] and a 2 3 Dod g e Pick up and Ma z da automobil e, ow ned byLarr y Par ker ,[ ] by

cu tti ng 4 tires and pain ting said property item s, w ithou t the ef fective conse nt of

said prop erty owners, and did thereby cause pecu niary loss of $1,5 00 m ore [sic] but l ess than $20, 000 t o the sa id ow ners . . . . The ju ry tr ial co mmenced o n Sept ember 5, 2006. On September 6, 2006, pr ior to the s ubmis si on of Stat e’s Ex hib it16, appel lan t t endered a motio n in li mine re q uest ing the trial court “to orde r the Sta te of Te x as no t to allud e to or a t t e m p tt o p u b lish to the juryS ta te ’ s E x h i b i t 1 6 i s l a b e l e d a s “P h o n e re c o rd i n g s o f J a c k H o l l a n d , m e s s a g e s l e ft o n M i c h e lle 5 H o l l a n d [’ ]s [B re a u x ] p h o n e s .”

T he r est i t ut i on am ount w as an am ount suggest ed by t he St at e and com pr i sed t he t ot al dam age done 6 to th e p ro p e rty d e s c rib e d i n th e i n d i c tm e n t. 3 h e re i n a c o mp a c td i s c w h i c h p u r p o rt e d l y i s a n e n h a n c e d , p e r h a p s e d i t e d , re c o rd i n g o f a telep hon e an sw ering mach ine in its unred acte d stat e w ithou t f irst havi ng the com pactdisc re v iew ed by

the Cou rtand obj ect ion s t o i ts int ro duct ion made by defense co u nsel and rulings made thereo n.” In his m otion in lim ine, app ellantf urthe r states th at th e com pact 5 dis c c ame to his att enti on i n t h e “ la te mor nin g hours o f September 5, 2006," and t he com pactdisc conta ins “v oice m essages left for Michelle Breau x b y t he Defend ant , Jack Hol lan d dur ing M arch of 2006.” The t ri al cour t den ied appel lan t’ s m o ti on i n l imi ne and adm itted the reco rdings. On S eptember

6, 2006, the jur

y retur ned a v erdict of g uil ty

. Pr ior to tr ial , app ell ant had electe d for t he trial cou rt to assess his pu nishm entin the event th at th e jury foun d him g uil ty

. The tr ial co urt as ses sed appel lan t’ s p uni shmentat tw o y ears’ co nfinement, no fin e, and $14 ,125 in re sti tuti on. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 28 .03 (b)(4)(A), ( e); Id. § 28.0 6(b). 6 Also on Sep tem ber 6, 200 6, the trial court certifie d app ellant ’s rig ht to app eal t h e ju ry’s
v erdict and the tr ial j udg e’s se ntenc e. On S eptember

13, 2006, appel lan t fil ed a moti on for new tr ial , all eg ing that: ( 1) the admis si on of the re cordin g s of mess ag es left on Mi chel le Breaux ’s ans w er ing machi ne w as hig hly preju dic ial and that er ro r w as preser v ed by hi s mot ion i n l imi ne, seeT EX . R. E V ID . 400, 403; (2 ) the t ri al cour t er re d i n admi tti ng the re cordin g s w it hout f irs t rev iew ing i ts cont ents ; ( 3) no e v ide nce suppo rt s the t ri al cour t’ s rest it uti on findi ng ; and ( 4) there w as ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce present ed attr ial to esta b lis h appel lan t’ s g uil t. The record reflect s4

that the tr ial cour

t did not ru le on appel lan t’ s moti on for new tr ial ; therefore, itw as ov er ru led by operati on of l aw . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 21.8( a) ( “The cour t mus t r ule on a moti on for new trial w ithin 75 days aft er impo sing or suspe ndin g sent ence in open court.”), 21. 8(c) (“ A moti on notti mely

r ule d on by

w ri tten order

w il l be deemed denie d wh e n t h e per iod prescribed in (a) expires.”). On Se pte mb er 26, 2 006 , app ellantf iled his not ice of app eal. This appeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW In a leg al suffici ency re v iew , w e v iew the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the prosec uti on to dete rmi ne w hether any rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the es sent ial ele ments of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 318- 19 ( 1979) ; W

ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 14- 17 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. The tr ier of facti s t he s ole j udg e of the facts, the credi bil ity of the w it ness es, and the w eig ht g iv en to test imony

. See C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 38.04 (V er non 197 9) ; Jacks on , 443 U .S. at 318- 39; Beckhamv. Sta te , 29 S.W .3d 1 48, 151 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 2000, pet. re f'd). W e do not reev alu ate t he w eig ht an d c re dib il ity of th e e vidence, w hether ci rc umstan ti al or

di re ct, nor

do w e s ubst it ute o ur

ow n j udg ment for that of t he tr ier of fact. Mo sley v. State , 141 S.W .3d 816, 821 (Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2004, pet. re f'd); Beck ham , 29 S. W .3d a t 151

. For

both l eg al and factual suffici ency , w e c onsi der w hether the jur y w as ra ti onal ly j ust ified i n findi ng g uil t bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. S e e Watson , 2 0 4 S.W .3d at 41 4- 17; Beck

ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. Each fact n eed not poi nt direct ly and ind ependent ly to the g uil t of the appel lan t, as long as the cu mu lative fo rce of all the incrimina ting circumsta nces is suf f icient to supp ort5

the c onv icti on. Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S.W .3d 9, 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. Ci rc umstan ti al evi de nc e i s as prob at i v e as di rect ev i de nc e i n es ta bl i s hi ng th e g ui l t of an actor; ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce alo ne c an be suffici ent t o es tabl is h g uil t. Guev ar a v. State , 152 S.W .3d 45, 49 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04). On app eal, b oth circumsta ntial an d direct evidence cas es are ex amined us ing the same s tandard of rev iew

. Id. W e meas ure the l eg al suffici ency of t he ev ide nce by the ele ments of the offense as defined b y

the hy pothet ic all y

co rrect j ur

y ch arg e. Ma li

k v . St ate , 953 S.W .2d 2 34, 2 40 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 7); Adi v . St ate , 94 S.W .3d 1 24, 1 31 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. re f'd). Su ch a c harg e wo u ld a cc u ratel y se t outthe law , woul d be author iz ed by the ind ictment, and w oul d notunnec ess ar il y i ncrease the S tate' s b urden of proof. Malik , 953 S.W .2d a t 240

. The el ements of the c harged o f f e n se in thi s c ase are: (1 ) appel lan t int enti onal ly

or kn ow ing ly damag es or dest ro y s the tang ibl e proper ty of the ow ner , and ( 2) does so w it hout the o w ner ’s co nsent

. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 28. 03( a) (1 ) (V er non Sup p. 20 07). In a factual suff ic ien cy

rev iew , w e det er mine w hether the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the
v erdict i s s o w eak that the verd ict i s c lea rl y w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ustor

w hether the
v erdict is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of the c onfli cti ng ev ide nce. W ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 415 . W e w ill notrev erse a case on a factu al suf f iciency challen ge unless
w e c an s ay , w it h s ome obj ect iv e bas is i n the record, t hat t he g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j ur y ’s v erdict. Id. at 417.T h e S ta te h a s n o t fi l e d a n a p p e l l a te b rie f i n re s p o n s e to a p p e l l a n t’ s c o n te n ti o n s . See Si ver and v. 7 S ta te , 8 9 S .W .3 d 2 1 6 , 2 1 9 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h r i s ti 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.) (“T h e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a te P r o c e d u r e r e q u ir e a p p e lla n t t o e ith e r f ile a b r i e fo r s ta te th a t h e n o lo n g e r d e s ir e s to p r o s e c u te th e a p p e a l. T EX . R. A PP . P. 38. 8( b)

. H owev er , t her e i s no co r r espond i ng r ul e r equi r i ng t he St at e t o f i l e a br i efi n r esponse to a p p e l l a n t’ s b rie f.”)

. T h e re fo re , i t w a s n o t i n c u m b e n t u p o n th e S ta te to fi l e a n a p p e l l a te b rie f i n re s p o n s e to a p p e lla n t’s c la im

.

M i c h e l l e B re a u x l a te r te s ti fie d th a t h e r re s i d e n c e w a s a t 3 0 7 N o rth S i x th S tre e t. 8 6 III . A N AL Y S IS A . L egal an d Fact ual Su ff icien cy o f th e Ev id ence 7 By his f irst issue, app ellantconte nds tha t the e v iden ce add uced a t trial w as legally
a n d fa c t u a ll y in s u f

f ic ie n tt o su p p o rth is co n vic t io n fo r fe lo n y cr im in a l m is c h ie f

. Sp e c if ic a ll y, appel lan t notes that his co nv icti on w as premis ed ent irely on c ircums tanti al ev ide nce and “t here w ere no ey e- w it ness es, f in gerpri nts or othe r credi ble forens icev ide nce li nki ng Appel lan t t o any

of the a cts as set forth in the indi ctment .” Appel lan t al so notes thati t w as impos si ble for h im t o hav e c ommitt ed th e c harg ed offense b e ca u se h e w as in Aust in, Tex as at t he ti me the ev ents oc cur re d. As previou sly m e n ti oned, the S tate is req uired to prov e the es sent ial el ements of a c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Se e Malik , 9 53 S. W .2d a t 240

. Mo re ov er , t he ele ments of felo ny

cr imi nal mis chi ef are: (1 ) appel lan t i ntent ion all y or kn ow ing ly

damag es or destro y s the ta ngible prope rty o f t he o w ner, an d (2) does so w ithou t the ow ner’s cons ent. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 28 .03 (a)(1). The Stat e present ed th e tes ti mony of Aransas C ounty

D eputy Sher iff Mi chael H o ffm a n t o e s t a b l i s h t h e t i mi n g o f t h e i n c i d e n tan d hi s i n i t i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . D e p u t y S h e r i ff Hoffman test ified thathe respon ded t o a c omplai nt at307 Nor th S ixth S treet o n M ay

15, 2006. H e furt her

tes ti fied th at w hen he ar ri v ed at the sc ene at 2:59 a.m., he obs er v ed th e 8St at e’ s Exhi bi t s 3- 10 a nd 1 2- 15 wer e ph ot ogr aphs t aken by D eput y T r ooperH off m an, whi ch 9 docum ent ed t he ext ent of t he d am age descr i bed. St at e’ s Exhi bi t 4 docum ent ed t he wor d “ cunt ” spr ay - pai nt ed on t he si de o fa hom e an d a shed. St at e’ s Exhi bi t 7 depi ct ed t he f ol l owi ng wor ds on ano t hersi de oft he sh ed:
“ B A C K S T A B B E R W H O R E L IV E S H E R E .” S ta te ’s E x h ib it 8 illu s tr a te s th a t t h e w o r d “ W H O R E ” w a s s p r a ypa i nted on a b en c h. S t ate’ s E x hi bi t 15 sh ow s t he w ord s “F U C K YO U T O O ” sp ray -pa i nted on t he ba c k of a D o d g e p i c k u p tru c k

. 7 follo w ing : “a g old -c olo re d Dod g e pic kup tr uck thathad an orang e- col ored s pray pai nt on the back. And I noticed a sma ll convertible M azda tha t had the tired sl ashe d on it as w ell as the p ic kup tr uck .” D eputy Sher iff Hoff man al so noted that: [H e] no ti ced a boati n the fronty ard had the t ires sl ashed on the trail er , bot h ti re s. There w as spra y p a in t o n the hul l of the boat , i tse lf. The boat cov er w as ripped or had be en cu t. Th e tires on his [Jim my Jones’s] picku p truck as w ell as M s. Breaux ’s ca r had bee n s li ced. A smal l Sea- Doo had t he ti re s sl ic ed on it s t ra il er . There w as a lot of s pray pai nt on the v ehi cl es. I not ic ed somebody

took a c an of bl ue hous e pai nt or some s ort of pai nt an d poured itov er the hood of the v ehi cl es as w ell as on a b e nch that w as in the y ard. And in sev eral area s some bod y h ad sp ray pain ted “a cunt liv es he re” or “ a man’s cu nt” I bel iev e i s w hat I took phot os of.[ ]

9 Finally , Depu ty She riff

Hof f ma n test if ied tha t he investig ate d the sce ne for a bou t four ho urs and t hat t he pai nt w as semi -d ry or st il l fresh w hen he beg an hi s i nv est ig ati on. The record al so cont ain s t he te sti mony of Mi chelle Breaux , app ell ant’ s e x -w ife. Breaux t est ifie d t h a t sh e and appel lan t had been marr ied for t hree y ears, but t hat appel lan t l eft the h ome i n Sept ember 2005. Breaux

furth er tes ti fied th at s inc e appel lan t le f t t h e ho m e in Se p te m b e r 20 0 5 , h is a ct io n s t o ward s h e r ha d be co m e th re a te n in g. Breaux note d tha t app e lla n t re peatedl y as ked her

for a nother

ch ance to mak e the re lat ion shi p w or k, and whe n sh e refused, a ppel lan t l eft threateni ng mess ag es on her answ er ing machi ne. In addi ti on, Breaux desc ri bed an inc ide nt that occ ur re d dur ing the
w int er of 2005 w here appel lan t l eft his boat in Breaux ’s dr iv ew ay , pus hed off the trail er , andBr eaux not es t hat t hi s i nci dent t r anspi r ed a f t er T hanksgi v i ng, but bef or e Chr i st m as i n 20 05. 10 T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t s h o w th a t c h a rg e s w e re b ro u g h t i n re g a rd to th i s i n c i d e n t. 11 B r e a u x n o te d th a t s h e d id n o t c o n s e n t t o th e s p r a y p a in tin g a n d th a t t h e r e w e r e a p p r o x im a te ly 12 $ 2 ,9 7 6 .0 0 i n d a m a g e s to h e r v e h i c l e . 8 blo ck ed her

ca r. A note w as found ins ide the b o a t w hic h Breaux recog niz ed as 10 appel lan t’ s h andw ri ti ng . The note sta ted t he foll ow ing : “Y ou fuck w it h me any more w it h y our trash ed out div orce, it w ill get w orst [sic] tha n this. Don’t fu ck w ith me are [sic] y ou’ll re g re t i t, back sta bber .” Breau x tes ti fied th at after

Sept ember

2005, appel lan t referred to 11 her as “backst abb er” on a regular basis. Breau x testif ied th at on May

15th , Jim m y

Jone s, her bo yf riend, w as at he r house and t hat there w as “a H onda c ar , a Ford pi ck up tr uck , and a bo at pa rk ed out si de th e fence” at he r resi d e n c e. Breau x note d tha t she an d Jon es w entto bed at “nine, ten o’clock ma y be” an d tha t w hen Jimm y g ot up at 3:0 0 a.m . to travel to Austin, he no ticed th at th ere w as pai nt al l ov er

thei r v ehi cl es. Breaux st ate d t h a t the v ehi cl es w ere i n g ood condi ti on—w it hout spray pai nt— whe n she and Jones w ent t o bed that ev eni ng and that she reco gniz ed th e spray-painte d ha ndwri ting as appe llant’s. 12 Breau x f urthe r noted thatshe ha d prob lem s with a ppe llant every tw o to th ree w eeks and as a result, she f iled for divorce in Janu ary 200 6. T he div orce becam e f inal in March 2006. Breaux

tes ti fied reg ardin g an i nci dent si x we e ks pr ior

at the F ult on In n w here her
v ehi cl e’s ti re s w ere s las hed. She spok e to appel lan t abo ut t his inci dent, but he deni ed inv olv ement. Next, Ji mmyJo nes tes ti fied th at he ov er heard sev eral of appell ant’ s a ll eg ed threateni ng phone cal ls to Breaux . In those cal ls , Jones noted thatappel lan t “ w as cal li ng9

her a ba ckstab ber. I don ’t know w het her I sho uld say it. Called her a cun t; threa ten ed h er, v er bal ly

. . . there w as yelling : ‘D on’ t mes s w it h me; I’ ll mess y ou up. ’” Jo nes further tes ti fied th at he w as present w hen Breaux confro nted appel lan t about the firs t s las hin g of her ti re s a t t he F ult on Inn. W hen he ask ed appe ll ant “ are y ou c ra z y ?” , app ell ant s aid , “ At lea st I g ot he r atten ti on.” J ones noted that w hen he and Breaux wen t t o bed around midni g ht, there w as no damag e done to thei r v ehi cl es; how ev er , w hen he w oke up at3:00 a.m. a nd w alk ed out si de, t here w as extens iv e damage to the proper ty . Jones co rroborated the d amag e tes ti mony prov ide d by

both D eputy

Troo per H off man and Br e a u x . Jones tes ti fied th at i t c osthi m $4,000 for a new paint job for his truc k and $1,100 to repl ace the sl ashed ti re s. Jo n e s a ls o s tated thati t c ost hi m $2,500 for a new

pai nt j ob for the b oat, $1,100 for new ti re s on the boat trail er , and $200 to re pla ce the ti re s on the Sea- Doo trail er . Fi nal ly , Jones testi fied that he did not g iv e c onsen t t o any one for his proper ty to be damag ed. Lar ry Par ker tes ti fied that he is Breaux ’s nei g hbor and that w hen he w ent t o bed at 9:30 p.m. o n M ay

15th , neither his v ehi cl es nor the v ehi cl es and proper ty of Breaux

and Jo n e s were da m a ged . P a rke r te st if ie d th a t h i s D o d ge p ick u p tru ckha d fo u l la n gua ge spray -p ain ted o n the tai lg ate, the ti re s w ere sl ashed on h is pi ck up and his M az da M iat a, his M az da M iat a’s rag top w as cu t, a n d t h ere w as a w avy l ine sp ra y -p ain ted a ro und t he exterior of

the Miata . Parker note d tha t it co st him a bou t $1, 000 to repa ir the pickup truck and abo ut $2 ,600 to repai r the M iat a. Par ker furth er tes ti fied th at h e w as not a w are of appel lan t’ s w hereabouts thatni g ht an d that he thoug ht he w as frie nds w it h bot h appel lan t and Breaux .T he rec ord do es no t co ntai n t he ac t ua l co m pa c t di s c of t he t el ep ho ne m es s ag es , bu t t he rec ord 13 cl ear l y dem onst r at es t hat t he co m pact di sc was pl ay ed i n t he p rese nce o ft he j ur y and t hat app el l ant re p e a te d l y re fe rr e d to B re a u x a s a “w h o re ,” “c u n t,” a n d “b a c k s ta b b e r.” 10 After ex cus ing Par ke r, the Stat e offered i nto e v ide nce a c ompactdi scco ntai nin g v ar iou s t ele phone mes sag es left byappell ant on Breaux ’s answ er ing machi ne. I n l ay ing 13 the p re dic ate for

the admis si on of the re cordin g s on the compact dis c, the Stat e proffered the testim ony of

O f f ice r Jame s Beck, an inv estigator w ith the Aransa s Count y Sherif f ’s O ffi c e . O ffi c e r

B e c kte s t i fi e d th a tBre a u x b ro u g h th i m o r i g i n a l a u d i o t a p e s o f m e s s a g e s l e ft on Breaux ’s ans w er ing machi ne. Off ic er Bec k furth er

tes ti fied th at he transfer re d the aud iotap es to a co mp act disc be cause tw o of the au diota pe s soun ded “li ke chipm unks becau se her

recorder w as on a different speed than myrecorder .” O ff ic er Bec k a ls o not ed t h a ti n t ra n s fe r r i n g t h e a u d i o t a p e s t o t h e c o mp a c td i s c , h e d i d n o t , i n a n y w a y , a l t e r

t he
v oic es or w ords of the par

ti ci pants on t he ta pes. At this time , app ellanto bjecte d to th e com pactdisc pursua nt to the be st evi den ce ru le, see T EX . R. E V ID . 1 0 0 2 , a s s e rt i n g t h a t t h e c o mp a c t d i s c w a s a re c o rd i ng of the
answ er ing machi ne mes sag es and t hat t he recordin g contai ned messag es that shoul d be re dact ed bec ause they “don’ t hav e anythi ng to do w it h the ev ent o r re all y w it h the att it ude o f Mr. Ho lla n d to ward hi s wife .” Sp e cif ica lly, a p p e lla n t a ss e rt e d th a t t h e re c o rd in gs inc lud ed ex pli ci t re ferenc es to oral sex and cl imax ing i n Breaux ’s mouth, w hic h appel lan t argued ha s no prob ative v alue and w ould inf lam e the jury . In respon se to ap pel la nt’s obje ction, the St ate n o t e d t hat“copies are ad missible same as the o rig inals. T he o nly chan ge that was made is a sl ower spee d. T hey are an e xa c tr e p li ca of the ta pes a nd it goe s t o sh o w th e rel a ti o n sh ip be twe e n th e pa rt ie s. ” T h e t ria l co u rte n te re d t h e rec o rd in gs int o ev ide nce w it hout re dact ion

.11

O f f ic e r Be c k t e s t ife d t h a t h e a ls o in ve s t ig a t e d t h e in c id e n tb u tt h a th e d id n o th a ve the chanc e to eit her

inter v iew appell ant o r search his v ehi cl e for forens icev ide nce li nki ng appel lan t t o the cri me. How ev er , Off ic er Beck stat ed that he did try to int er v iew appel lan t
w i t h i n t h re e w e e k s o f t h e i n c i d e n t , b u t t h a t h e w a s u n a b l e t o fi n d a p p e l l a n t e v e n after
v is it ing hi s resi dence

. Fi nal ly , O ff ic er Bec k te st if ied thatbas ed on his ex per ien ces w it h appel lan t i n the past and t he recorded mes sag es that appel lan t l eft for Breaux , he bel iev ed that despi te the absenc e of f ing er pr int s or any

other forens icev ide nce, appell ant w as the ind iv idu al w ho c ommitt ed th is cr ime. Af ter the Sta te reste d its case-in-chie f , app ellantcalled Jesse Holland, app ellant ’s son, to testif

y . Jesse test if ied tha t f rom May1 2th t o May1 7th , app ellantwas visiting him at hi s a par

tment in Aust in. O n the ni g ht i n q uest ion , J ess e testi fied th at he had been
w or ki ng al l day

unti l “8 :00- is h.” Upo n re tur nin g home, Jes se noted that he and appel lan t

“ [j ]u s t hu ng a rou nd, watc he d T. V. W e un l oa de d s om e mo re of h i s s tu ff i nt o my roo m. Ma de di nner . That’s about it .” Je ss e s tated thathe a nd appe ll ant w ent t o bed at 9: 30 or 10:00 p.m. a nd that appell ant sl ept on Je ss e’s floor bes ide hi s b ed. Jes se further tes ti fied tha t his room ma te, Andraya Row ley, w as prese nt th at night an d w as w atch ing a movie in the liv ing room of

the ap artm ent . Je sse no ted thathe got up several time s thatnight to use th e res troo m. J es s e fur th er s ta te d th at w he n he w ou l d g et up to us e the res troo m, appel lan t w as alw ay s a sl eep on the flo or bes ide hi s b ed, a nd th at he w as fo rce d to ste p ov er appel lan t in order to re ach the re stroom. Jes se als o s tated thatappel lan t w as present the next morni ng at about 7:00 a.m. an d tha t he nev er sa w appel lan t l eav e the apar tment tha t night. More over, Jesse t estif ied tha t app ellantd id notapp ear to h ave blood shotey es,T he r ecor d do es no t cont ai n St at e’ s Exhi bi t 17, nor does i t re f l ect t hat t he St at e at t em pt ed t o off er 14 R owl ey ’ s r ecount i ng o fapp el l ant ’ s v i si t i nt o ev i dence. 12 be fati g ued, anx iou s o r ner v ous, or hav e pai nt on any

par t of hi s b ody the morni ng of Ma y 15th. On cross -e x aminat ion , J ess e rev eal ed th at he co uld not compl etel y remember w hat happened on the nig ht in q uest ion , but after disc uss ing the ev ents w it h appell ant, he beg an to remember w hat had happened. Jes se als o rev eal ed th at he had prev iou sl y l ied about app ellant ’s w here abo uts th at night to h is g rand pare nts an d to his brot her. Appel lan t t hen offered t he testi mony of Row ley , w ho recal led appel lan t v is it ing the ap ar tm en t from M ay 12 th to M ay 17 th

. R ow l ey no te d th at s he w en t to be d at1 1: 00 p .m . on th e ni g ht i n q uest ion , and thatsh e di d notobs er v e any one leav ing the apar tment from the t ime Jes se re tur ned home from w or k unti l the t ime she w ent t o bed. R ow ley tes ti fied that becau se of the ac oust ic s o f the apar tment, sh e w oul d hav e heard s omeone ex itfrom the front d oor

of the apar

tment. She als o sta ted that on the morni ng of M ay 15th, appel lan t did not appear

to hav e blo odsho t ey es, be fatig ued, anx iou s o r ner v ous, or hav e pai nt on any par t of hi s b ody

. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , R ow ley admi tted that she kepther bedroom door

cl osed once she re ti re d for

the ev eni ng . She als o rev eal ed that she dis cus sed her tes ti mony

w it h Jesse p rior to the trial. Th e Sta te then show ed Row ley w hat w as ma rked as State’s Exhibit 17, w hic h w as Row ley ’s w ri tten re coun t o f appel lan t’ s v is itto Aust in. R ow ley admi tted 14 that in re count ing appel lan t’ s v is itto Aust in, sh e di d notmenti on M ay 14th or M ay 15th , w hic h appea re d to ind ic ate t hat h er memor y of the e v ents w as haz y unt il her di sc uss ion
w it h J e s s e . F u rt h e r , R o w l e y d i s c l o s e d t h a t t h e re i s a n e x i t fro m J e s s e ’ s b e d ro om to theAppel l ant , howev er , not ed t hat he was not m ad a t heron M ay 14t h an d M ay 15t h, 200 6. 15 13 o u ts id e w h ich sh e w o u ld no t h a ve n e ce ss a rily h e a rd so m e o n e us in g. Fi nal ly , app ell ant h ims elf tes ti fied th at he had nei ther se nt Breaux

any threateni ng letters n or

made t hreateni ng co mments to he r orall y despi te ad mitt ing thatthe v oic e i n the re cordin g s w as his ow n. Appel lan t deni ed ev er eng ag ing in any act s th a t wou ld be cons tr ued as oppress iv e or menac ing tow ards Breaux , i ncl udi ng the or ig ina l sl ashi ng of Breaux ’s ti re s. Appell ant admitt ed that he had used some foul lang uag e tow ards Breaux and t hat h e w as mad at her in Ma y 2006. Appel lan t deni ed inv olv ement in the e v ents of 15 May15th and den ied th e Sta te’s imp lication th at he convinced Jesse to lie as to his
w hereabouts o n M a y 1 5 th. Appel lan t admi tted that he had been an g ry at Jones i n the past , butsaid tha t he was nev er angry at Parker. The ev ide nce demonst ra tes that appel lan t w as ang ry w it h Breaux , hi s e x -w ife, for lea v ing hi m and for

dati ng Jones

. After hear ing all the ev ide nce, the jur y conc lud ed th at a p p e l l a n th a d c o mm i t t e d t h e a c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e i n dic tment. See B eck ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151 ( noti ng thatthe tr ier of fact i s t he s ole j udg e of the facts, t h e c re d ibil ity of
w it ness es, and the w eig ht t o be g iv en to thei r tes ti mony ). The ev ide nce sug g est s t hat appel lan t’ s a ng er

often manifested itse lf in agg re ss iv e c onduct, w hic h i ncl uded menac ing te le p h o n e ca lls an d m e ss a ges , th re a te n in g n o te s, a n d th e co n st a n t u se of vulga r la n gua ge to de nig ra te B re aux . Des pit e appel lan t’ s c ontent ion thathe w as in Aust in on th e ev eni ng in q uest ion , t he tes ti mony of J ess e and R ow ley rev eal ed th at i t was poss ibl e for appel lan t to l eav e the apar

tment u n detected; that nei ther Je ss e nor

R ow ley w ere aw are of appel lan t’ s l ocat ion at all ti mes du ring th e e veni ng ; and thatnei ther Je ss e nor

R ow ley14

co u ld r e call the ev ent o f the ni g ht i n q uest ion i n det ail unti l they w ere approache d by appel lan t. W e c oncl ude t hat t he j ur y w as ra tional ly

j ust ified i n findi ng g uil t bey ond a reaso nab le dou bt an d tha t the ev iden ce w as le ga ll y and factu ally suf f icient to supp ort appel lan t’ s c onv icti on. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue. B. The Recorded Tele phone Convers ations In hi s s econd i ss ue, a ppel lan t c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n fail ing to rev iew the recorded t ele phone c onv ersat ion s b etw een app e llant and B re aux for i rrele v ant a nd obj ect ion al cont ent a cc ordin g to his moti on in l im in e . Appel lan t al so arg ues that the re cordin g s w ere i mprop er ly admitt e d i nto e v ide nce becau se “t he preju dic ial effectof the cont ents of thes e recordin g s far outw eig hed t hei r probati v e v alu e s in ce t he s train ed re lat ion shi p betw een M s. Breaux and Appel lan t was ot her w is e c lea rl y

ev ide nt fro m her tes ti mony

. . . .” See T EX . R. E V ID . 403, 404. A tr ial co urt has w ide di sc re ti on in i ts deci si on to admi t or ex cl ude ev ide nce. Mo ntgom er

y v . St ate , 8 1 0 S

. W

. 2 d 3 7 2 , 3 9 2 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 1 991) ; Reyes v. Sta te , 69 S.W .3d 725 , 735 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi 2002 , petref ’d). An abu se of discretion o ccurs w hen t he tr ial cour

t act s ar bit ra ri ly or unreason abl y , w it hout re ferenc e to g uid ing r ule s o r pr inc ipl es. Montg om ery, 810 S.W .2d a t 380

. Therefore, t he tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng mustbe a t lea st w it hin the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement t o prev ent rev ersal

. Id. at 391. To preser

v e a c omplai nt for

appel lat e rev iew , t he record must show that a c omplai nt
w as made to the t ri al cour t by a ti mely re q uest , obj ect ion , or moti on th at s tated the g ro unds for th e r uli ng thatthe compl ain ing par ty soug ht f ro m the t ri al cour t w it h s uff ic ien t s peci fici ty to mak e the tr ial co urt aw are of the compl ain t, unl ess the g ro unds w ere apparent from the15

cont ext. T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1( a) (1 )( A) ; Di xon v. State , 2 S.W .3d 2 63, 2 65 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 199 8). Th e objecting party mu st cont inue t o object ea ch time the objection able ev iden ce is offered. Fu e n te s

v . S ta te , 991 S.W .2d 267 , 273 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99); Ething ton v. State , 819 S.W .2d 854 , 858 -59 (Te x . Crim. App

. 199 1). To be tim ely, the object ion m ust be made at t he ear li estpos si ble oppor tuni ty

. Tur

ner v. Sta te , 8 0 5 S

. W

. 2 d 4 2 3 , 4 3 1 (T e x. Crim. App . 199 1) (en ban c). A trial court’s erroneo us ad mission of ev iden ce w ill notrequire re v ersal w hen ot her suc h ev ide nce w as re cei v ed w it hout obj ect ion , ei ther before or

after th e c o m p lained- of rul ing

. Leday v. Sta te , 98 3 S. W .2 d 71 3, 7 18 ( Tex

. C r i m. A pp . 19 98 ). Mo re ov er , ev en i f the ev ide nce w as admitted o v er a proper obj ect ion , i t i s h ar mles s i f the same e v ide nce is admi tted w it hout obj ect ion and prov es the sa m e fact. Ham m ons v. State , 856 S.W .2d 797 , 802 (Tex. App .–Fo rt W orth 1993 , pet

. ref ’d). Any alleged error in the a dmis si on of ev ide nce is cu re d i f the s ame ev ide nce is admi tte d elsew here i n tr ial
w it hout obj ect ion

. Hud son v. State , 675 S.W .2d 5 07, 5 11 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984)

. Mo ti ons in li mine do notpreser v e er ro r. See Webb v. Sta te , 760 S.W .2d 2 63, 2 75 (Te x . Crim. App . 198 8); Gonz ale s v. State , 685 S.W .2d 47, 50 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1985) ; see als o Jaynes

v. Sta te , 216 S.W .3d 839 , 850 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 6, no pet. ). This is tr ue w hether

the moti on i s g ra nted or deni ed. W

il li s v . St ate , 7 8 5 S

. W

. 2 d 3 7 8 , 3 8 4 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1989) ; W

ebb , 760 S.W .2d a t 275

. The record reflect s t hat a ppel lan t fil ed a moti on in li mine w it h the tr ial cour t as to t he re cordin g s o n Sept ember 6, 2006. Onc e the S tate offered th e recordin g s for su bmis si on into t he rec ord, ap pe l l an t ob j ecte d to th ei r i nc l us i on i n th e rec ord ba s ed up on th e be stO n a p p e a l , a p p e l l a n t d o e s n o t a d v a n c e tria l c o u n s e l ’ s b e s t e v i d e n c e ru l e o b je c ti o n . See T EX . R. 16 E V ID . 1 0 0 2

. T h e re fo re , w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s th i s c o n te n ti o n . See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 38

. 1(h ). 16 ev ide nce ru le, seeT EX . R. E V ID . 1002, and ru le 401 of the r ule s o f ev ide nce, se e T EX . R. 16 E V ID . 4 0 1

. Sp e c if ic a ll y, a p p e l la n ta rg u e d t h a t“t h e re a re p o rt io n s o f t h e t a p e t h a th a ve nothi ng to do w it h the offense or of the c haract er

or the re lat ionshi p tha t s houl d be re d a ct e d be fo re pre se n te d t o t h e t rie r of fa ct .” Th e tri a l co u rt , in ad m it ti n g th e rec o rd in gs and allow ing them to be p layed to the jury , impl ic it ly o ve rruled ap pellan t’s request in his mo tion in limin e. How ever, on app eal, a ppe llant a sserts tha t the trial court erred in admitti ng the re cordin g s b ecaus e ( 1) i t fail ed to rev iew the re cordin g s for

i rrele v ant a nd obje ctiona ble con ten t, an d (2) the preju d ic ia l e f fect of the reco rdings fa r outweig h the ir probati v e v alu e pursuant to r ule s 4 03 and 404 of the ru les of ev ide nce. See T EX . R. E V ID . 403, 404. W e concl ude that appell ant w aiv ed hi s c ontent ion per tai nin g to ru les 403 and 404 bec ause he di d notmake a s peci fic r ule 403 or rul e 404 obj ect ion to the t ri al cour t as to t he recordin g s. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1( a) (1 )( A) ; see als o R oda v . St ate , N o. 13 -0 5- 039- CR , 200 6 Tex . Ap p. LEX IS 4475, at *7 n.5 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti M ay 25, 2006, no p et.) (me m. op., not de signated for pub lication) (not ing that a pa rty must ma ke a rule 403 obj ect ion at tr ial to preser v e er ro r on appe al)

. The re maini ng contenti ons in appel lan t’ s sec ond i ss ue per tai n to re lev ancy

of the re c o rd i n g s a n d t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s a l l e g e d d u t y t o re v i e w

a n d re d a c tt h e re c o rd i n g s for irrelev antor objectio nab le cont ent . Appe llant’s rem a in in g cont ent ions are ina dequa tely briefed b ecau se ap pellan t has no t provided this Court wi th an y auth oritysupp orti n g his cont enti ons re g ardin g rele v ancy and the t ri al court’s d uty to re v iew

the re cordin g s a nd re dact

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1( h)

. As suc h, ap pel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue i s w aiv ed.17

C. Pr op or

ti on ality o f A pp ellan t’ s Sen te nce By hi s t hird i ss ue, a ppel lan t c ontends t h a t t he puni shmentas ses sed by the tr ial cour t w as dis propor

ti onate to t he s ev er ity

of the a ll eg ed offense, i n v iol ati on of the Ei g hth and Four teent h Amendments of the Uni ted S tates C onst it uti on. See U .S. C ON ST . am end s. VIII , X IV. T o p re s e rve e rro r fo r a p p e ll a t e re vie w, t h e co m p la in in g p a rt y m u s tm a k e a t im e ly, spec ificobj ect ion

. Hul l v. State , 67 S. W .3d 215 , 217 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02); Turner v. State , 805 S. W .2d 4 23, 4 31 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) ; seeT EX . R. A PP . P. 33 .1 ( a) (“As a prereq uis it e to present ing a c omplai nt for appel lat e rev iew , t he re cord must show that : (1 ) the c omplai nt w as made to the t ri al cour t by a t imel y req uest , obj ect ion , or motion

. . . and (2) the trial court: (A) ruled on th e request, objection , or mo tion either expressly or implicitly

. . . .” ). “ ‘A ll a pa rty

has to do to av oid the forfeiture of a c omplai nt on appeal i s t o l et t he trial judge know w hat he w ant s, w hy he thinks him self ent itled to it, and to d o so cl early enoug h for the j udg e to understa nd hi m at a ti me w hen t he tr ial co urt i s i n a p ro per pos it ion to do some thing abo ut it.’” Keeter v. Sta te , 175 S.W .3d 7 56, 7 60 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) (qu o ti n g Lanks ton v

. St ate , 827 S.W .2d 9 07, 9 09 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1992)( en banc ))

. Tex as cour

ts hav e c onsi ste ntl y

hel d tha t ev en c onst it utional er ro rs i nv olv ing dis propor

ti onate sent ences can be w aiv ed byfail ing to obj ectat tr ial

. See C ur ry v. Sta te , 9 1 0 S. W .2 d 4 9 0 , 49 7 -9 8 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) (ci ti n g Gar ci a v . St ate , 887 S.W .2d 8 46, 861 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1994) ( failu re to ra is e Ei g hth A mendment ob jecti on attr ial w aiv es any suc h c lai m on app eal )) ; Sol is v. Sta te , 945 S.W . 2d 30 0, 30 1 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st Di s t

. ] 1 9 9 7 , p e t

. re f ’d ) ( h o ld in g t h a ta cl a im o f gro s s ly d is p ro p o rt io n a t e se n t e n c e vio la t iveAppel l ant seem s t o ar gue t hat we ha v e t he p ow er t o revi ew h i s sent ence “ t o de t er m i ne whet her 17 s u c h s e n te n c e p a s s e d c o n s tit u tio n a l m u s te r th o u g h n o o b j e c tio n w a s m a d e d u r in g tr ia l.” H o w e v e r , in accor dance wi t h r ul e 38. 1( h) of t he T exas R ul es of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e, we wi l l onl y consi dercont ent i ons t hat a re s u p p o rte d b y c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e a rg u m e n ts w i th a p p ro p ria te c i ta ti o n s to a u th o rit i e s a n d th e re c o rd

. T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8 .1 (h ); R h o a d e s v . S ta te , 934 S. W

. 2d 1 13, 119 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 1996) ( en b anc)

. Appel l ant has not pr ov i ded r el ev ant aut hor i t y t o suppor t t hi s cont ent i on. Accor di ngl y , we ne ed n ot add r ess t hi s cont ent i on because i t i s i nadeq uat el y br i ef ed. 18 of t he Ei g hth Amendment w as forfeited by fail ure to obj ect ); Qui

ntana v. State , 777 S.W .2d 474, 479 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Ch ris ti 1 989, pet. re f’d) ( hol din g thatfail ure to obj ectto a sent ence as cruel and unu sual fo rfeits error). Here, the record ref lects tha t app ellantdid not o bje ct to t he i mposi ti on of puni shment at tr ial nor did he rais e the co mplai nt i n a mot ion for new tr ial

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3

. 1 (a ). W e c o n c lu d e t h a ta p p e ll a n tfa il e d t o p re s e rve thi s c omplai nt for

rev iew

. Ac cordin g ly , w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue.

17 IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________ _________

_____ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX .R .A PP .P. 47.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 17t h day

of Apr il , 200 8.