Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/George Aleman v. State

George Aleman v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 14, 2006
Docket06-05-00141-CR
StatusPublished

This text of George Aleman v. State (George Aleman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
George Aleman v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion



In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-05-00141-CR



GEORGE ALEMAN, Appellant

 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                                              


On Appeal from the 248th Judicial District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1012816


                                                 



Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross



MEMORANDUM OPINION


          George Aleman appeals from his conviction by a jury for aggravated robbery. The jury assessed punishment at twenty-five years' imprisonment. Aleman contends the trial court committed reversible error by overruling his objections to the admission of evidence that he had committed another theft on the same date as the aggravated robbery, and by admitting evidence that the victim was pregnant at the time of the attack. We affirm.

          Aleman does not attack the sufficiency of the evidence, but we provide a brief synopsis to provide context for our review. Aleman was convicted for attacking Melissa Hanks in the parking lot of a convenience store. The attack occurred at about 4:25 p.m. Hanks testified that, on arrival at the store, she exited her vehicle, with her car keys and a small wallet in her hand. After exiting the car, she was approached by two males whom she described as "Hispanic," one wearing blue jeans and a "mustard-colored" shirt, and the other wearing blue jeans and no shirt. In court, she identified Aleman as the one with no shirt and identified Abraham Gomez as the one wearing the "mustard-colored" shirt. Hanks testified that, as Aleman approached her, he grasped her arm, demanded the keys to her car, and while she pleaded with him not to hurt her because she was pregnant, he hit her on the head with a bottle. Hanks testified she gave Aleman the keys and threw her wallet to the ground, but Aleman continued to grip her arm. As Hanks struggled to get free, she managed to maneuver Aleman toward the front of the store. Aleman was apparently on the ground, continuing to grasp Hanks' arm, when Hanks stepped on a "cement" step and kicked Aleman on his head, causing Aleman to release her. Hanks ran into the store and told an employee to call the police. Hanks testified that, while she was struggling with Aleman, Gomez entered her vehicle and was sitting on the passenger's side. After she broke free from Aleman, he too entered her car, on the driver's side, and tried unsuccessfully to get it started. From inside the store, Hanks observed Gomez run away with her purse, with Aleman following him.

          Police had left the store only a few minutes earlier after responding to a report that two males had stolen beer from this particular convenience store. This theft took place at about 3:30 that afternoon. Officer D. J. Patterson testified he left the store at about 4:05 p.m. Officers responding to the Hanks robbery apprehended Gomez almost immediately. Aleman was arrested the next day, exhibiting a head injury for which he was hospitalized.

          Aleman first complains the trial court erred by admitting evidence that he had committed an extraneous offense. His point of error addresses only the testimony of Abdul Allana, the owner of the convenience store. Over a running objection, Allana testified he saw two boys in his store steal beer and agreed they were the same two who were outside the store with the woman who was attacked.

          We review the trial court's determination of admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 378–79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Rule of Evidence 404(b) prohibits the use of evidence of a defendant's other bad acts or wrongs to prove that such defendant acted in conformity with his or her character. Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). Evidence of extraneous offenses may be admitted for other purposes, however, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. See id. It may also be admitted as contextual evidence. Thus, the evidence may be admitted if the proponent convinces the court that it is relevant to establish some elemental fact, such as identity or intent; that it tends to establish some evidentiary fact, such as motive, opportunity or preparation, leading inferentially to an elemental fact; or that it rebuts a defensive theory. Marc v. State, 166 S.W.3d 767, 775 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref'd); Massey v. State, 933 S.W.2d 582, 586 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.).

          Allana's identification of Aleman and Gomez—weakened by the evidence that he could not see clearly through the doors of the store and by the distance between him and the attack—was strengthened by his ability to identify them as also being the two who had, very shortly before, stolen beer from his store. The identity of the attacker was at issue, and evidence that the same person, wearing the same clothes, had within the hour returned to the scene of one crime and committed another is evidence that tends to establish the elemental fact of identity.

          The remaining question raised by Aleman is whether the evidence was of such a nature that it should nonetheless have been excluded under Tex. R. Evid. 403 because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Rule 403 favors admissibility of relevant evidence, and the presumption is that relevant evidence will be more probative than prejudicial. Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 388–89 (op. on reh'g). In Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals restated the factors discussed in Montgomery that should go into the balancing test:

(1) how compellingly the extraneous offense evidence serves to make a fact of consequence more or less probable--a factor which is related to the strength of the evidence presented by the proponent to show the defendant in fact committed the extraneous offense;

(2) the potential the other offense evidence has to impress the jury "in some irrational but nevertheless indelible way";

(3) the time the proponent will need to develop the evidence, during which the jury will be distracted from consideration of the indicted offense; and

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Marc v. State
166 S.W.3d 767 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Hankins v. State
132 S.W.3d 380 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2004)
In Re McAllen Medical Center, Inc.
275 S.W.3d 458 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
Massey v. State
933 S.W.2d 582 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
McCarver v. State
257 S.W.3d 512 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Hai Hai Vuong v. State
830 S.W.2d 929 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
In Re Court of Inquiry
148 S.W.3d 554 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Martinez v. State
98 S.W.3d 189 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2003)
In Re Court of Inquiry
326 S.W.3d 372 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Lockhart v. State
847 S.W.2d 568 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Montgomery v. State
810 S.W.2d 372 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
McDuff v. State
939 S.W.2d 607 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Santellan v. State
939 S.W.2d 155 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Olowosuko v. State
826 S.W.2d 940 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
George Aleman v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-aleman-v-state-texapp-2006.