Dylan John Hart v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 23, 2022
• Docket: 10-20-00062-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-20-00062-CR

DYLAN JOHN HART, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. 19-25560

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dylan John Hart was convicted of sexual assault of a child younger than seventeen

and sentenced to 10 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE §22.011 (a)(2). Because Hart’s

issue is not preserved, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In his sole issue on appeal, Hart contends the trial court erred in allowing the State

to present evidence of Hart’s character during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial in

violation of Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1),(2). 1 Hart failed to object on this basis in the

1 The testimony at issue centered around an incident where Hart brought a young man, not the victim in the underlying case, to a bar and a friend of Hart’s told Hart that the young man was in high school and warned Hart about “hanging out with a kid, especially in a bar.” trial court. Rather, at trial, Hart objected to the testimony as being inherently prejudicial,

a Rule 403 objection. TEX. R. EVID. 403 (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its

probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:

unfair prejudice….”). In his brief, although Hart mentions Rule 403, he concluded his

argument by specifically maintaining that the testimony “concerning [Hart] and the

young man in the bar went only to [Hart’s] character and did not ma[ke] more probable

that he committed the offense for which he was on trial[,]” a mixture of Rules 404(b) and

401. TEX. R. EVID. 404(b); 401.

Accordingly, Hart’s argument on appeal does not comport with the objection

made at trial, and this issue is not preserved for our review. See Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d

687, 691-92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tex. Crim. App.

2009).

Hart’s sole issue is overruled and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed February 23, 2022 Do not publish [CR25]

Hart v. State Page 2