Court Opinion

ID: 9773750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:57:38.091407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:56.943417
License: Public Domain

SEERDEN, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s disposition of this ease.
However, without agreeing or disagreeing with the majority’s discussion, reasoning or holdings with respect to points of error two and three, I would simply hold that even if the matters complained of were errors, without deciding if there were errors, they were *793harmless. The other evidence of appellant’s guilt was overwhelming without the photographs or appellant’s statement.
Alvarez testified that he witnessed appellant carrying items from the home of his neighbor to his [appellant’s] car, parked in plain view on a public street. Hutchins, the homeowner, testified and identified the items in appellant’s car as those taken from his home, and stated further that he had not given consent or authority for appellant to enter the home or take any such items. The responding officer testified that he observed the stolen items, including a YCR, in appellant’s automobile, and that, after investigating the house where the reported burglary occurred, he noticed the back door ajar and loose television wires.
From this evidence alone, I believe we can properly determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any error in admitting the photographs and appellant’s statement did not contribute to appellant’s conviction, and as such, must be considered harmless. Tex. R.App.P. 44.1(a); Brown v. State, 960 S.W.2d 265, 271-72 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no pet. h.) (wrongful admission of appellant’s statement deemed harmless).