Goode, Steven Michael

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 1, 2015
• Docket: PD-1014-15
• Status: Published

Opinion

PD-1014-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 8/31/2015 6:23:45 PM Accepted 9/1/2015 12:46:05 PM ABEL ACOSTA ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED CLERK

NO. PD-1014-15

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS SITTING AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

STEVEN GOODE, Petitioner,

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Respondent

On Petition for Discretionary Review To the Court of Appeals Fifth Supreme Judicial District Cause No. 05-14-00651-CR

PETITION SEEKING DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

James W. Huggler State Bar No. 00795437 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: 903-593-2400 September 1, 2015 Facsimile: 903-593-3830 jhugglerlaw@sbcglobal.net

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER IDENTITY OF PARTIES

Trial Court Judge: Dennis Jones, Presiding County Court at Law Number One Kaufman County, Texas

Appellant/Petitioner: Steven Goode TDCJ#01929962 Michael Unit 2664 FM 2054 Tennessee Colony, Texas 75886

Appellant’s Nolan White Trial Counsel: 690 W. Dallas Canton, Texas 75103

Appellant’s Counsel Russ Henrichs on Direct Appeal: PO Box 190983 Dallas, Texas 75219

Appellant’s Counsel James Huggler on Petition Seeking 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805 Discretionary Review:Tyler, Texas 75702

Appellee/Respondent: State of Texas Kaufman County Criminal District Attorney’s Office

State’s Phillip Williams Trial Counsel: Shelton Gibbs Kaufman County District Attorney’s Office 100 W. Mulberry, 2nd Floor Kaufman, Texas 75142

i State’s Sue Korioth Appellate Counsel: Erleigh Wiley Kaufman County District Attorney’s Office 100 W. Mulberry, 2nd Floor Kaufman, Texas 75142

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

GROUNDS FOR REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

What are the permissible limits to the State offering evidence of gang membership when that evidence does not further an element of the offense or is simply character evidence?

REASONS FOR GRANTING REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. Reasons for Granting Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

B. Analysis and Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

APPENDIX A - Opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Canales v. State, 98 S.W.3d 690, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). . . . . . . 4, 6 Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). . . . . . . . 5 Goode v. State, No. 05-14-00651-CR, Tex. App. – Dallas, July 1, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim Jackson v. State, 314 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5, 6 Medrano v. State, No. AP-75320, 2008 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

RULES

TEX. R. APP. P. ANN. 9.4 (West 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TEX. R. APP. P. ANN. 66.3(a) (West 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 TEX. R. APP. P. ANN. 66.3(b) (West 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 TEX. R. APP. P. ANN. 66.3(c) (West 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 TEX. R. EVID. 403. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

5 PD-1014-15

STEVEN GOODE, § IN THE COURT OF PETITIONER § § VS. § CRIMINAL APPEALS § THE STATE OF TEXAS, § APPELLEE § AUSTIN, TEXAS

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

Steven Goode, Petitioner and Defendant in the trial court,

respectfully submits this his Petition for Discretionary Review

complaining of the ruling and opinion by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Supreme Judicial District, and would show the Court as follows:

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

In the event this Court grants this petition, Petitioner requests the

Court to grant oral argument herein so that all matters may be clarified

and any questions presented by the briefs of the parties may be addressed

in a proper manner.

1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant was indicted in Kaufman County with the felony offense

of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine. Goode v. State,

No. 05-14-00651-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6741 (Tex. App. – Dallas, July

1, 2015). A jury convicted Mr. Goose and the trial court sentenced him to

thirty years confinement. Notice of appeal was timely filed. The Court of

Appeals affirmed the trial court’s sentence in an unpublished opinion, and

this petition follows. The Petition is timely filed on or before August 31,

2015 following proper extensions granted by this Court.

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Fifth Court of Appeals issued an opinion not designated for

publication in number 05-14-00651-CR on July 1, 2015. No motion for

rehearing was filed. On August 6, 2015, a Motion to Extend Time to File

Petition for Discretionary Review was filed. That Motion was granted and

the time to file a petition for discretionary review was extended until

August 31, 2015.

2 GROUND FOR REVIEW

What are the permissible limits to the State offering evidence of gang membership when that evidence does not further an element of the offense or is simply character evidence?

REASONS FOR GRANTING REVIEW

The decision of the Court of Appeals conflicts with another court of

appeals decision on the same issue. TEX. R. APP. P. ANN. 66.3(a) (West

2014).

The decision of the Court of Appeals decided an important question

of state or federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by the

Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. Ann. 66.3(b) (West 2014).

The decision of the Court of Appeals conflicts with an applicable

decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals on an important question of

state law. TEX. R. APP. PROC. ANN. 66.3( c)(West 2014).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Steven Goode was indicted and charged with the offense of

possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in an amount 3 between four and two hundred grams. The State’s case rested on the

testimony of informant Carole Blevins, who had the methamphetamine

hidden in the crotch of her pants Goode at 2. The law enforcement officers

who investigated the case also relied on the fact that Mr. Goode was a

member of a criminal street gang, specifically the Aryan Brotherhood of

Texas. Goode at 3. The trial court found the enhancement paragraph

true and sentenced Mr. Goode to thirty years confinement. Further

discussion of relevant facts is included below.

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

A. Reasons for Granting Review

The opinion issued in this case conflicts with the opinion from the

First Court of Appeals on the same issue. Jackson v. State, 314 S.W.3d

118 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.).

The opinion also conflicts with this Court’s holdings limiting gang

membership testimony if it provides some relevant link to the commission

of the offense. Medrano v. State, No. AP-75320, 2008 Tex. Crim. App.

Unpub. LEXIS 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Canales v. State, 98

S.W.3d 690, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 4 B. Analysis and Application

Almost the surest way to ensure a conviction is to include an

allegation that an accused is a member of a criminal street gang. In this

case, there was a running objection to the evidence that Mr. Goode was a

member of a gang, and the State relied extensivley on the Aryan

Brotherhood of Texas, its operating methods, and his involvement with

that group. Goode at 8-9. The jury was left with general information

about the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas and their structure and operating

methods, and left to speculate as to Mr. Goode’s involvement.

The Court of Appeals erred in finding this evidence was properly

admitted because the indictment alleged that Mr. Goode was a member

of a criminal street gang. Goode at 10. The allegation however does not

end the inquiry. Jackson 118 S.W.3d at 125. Even relevant evidence can

be excluded. TEX. R. EVID. 403; Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637,

641-42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The Court also erred in determining that

contraband inside the pants of another person somehow fits the operating

patterns of a street gang and is thus admissible. Goode at 10.

This analysis used below stands in contrast to the Houston court in

Jackson. Jackson involved the admissibility of evidence of prior crimes 5 committed by a criminal street gang without any evidence as to the

defendant’s participation in or knowledge of those offenses. Jackson at

125-26.

The analysis used below also contradicts the requirement that gang

testimony must have some underlying value to assist the trier of fact.

Canales, 98 S.W.3d at 697.

CONCLUSION

Under all circumstances, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the

trial court’s decision. This court should grant discretionary review, allow

complete briefing, and, upon such review, reverse the Court of Appeals

and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration.

6 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays the Court to grant discretionary

review and, upon such review, to reverse the judgment of the Court of

Appeals; and for such other and further relief to which he may show

himself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James Huggler James W. Huggler State Bar No. 00795437 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: 903-593-2400 Facsimile: 903-593-3830 jhugglerlaw@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition

has been forwarded to the Kaufman County District Attorney’s Office ,

and on the State Prosecuting Attorney through the State of Texas

Electronic Filing System on this the 31st day of August, 2015 at the

addresses listed below

/s/ James Huggler James W. Huggler

Erleigh Wiley Sue Korioth Kaufman County District Attorney’s Office 100 W. Mulberry, 2nd Floor Kaufman, Texas 75142

Lisa McMinn State Prosecuting Attorney PO Box 12405 Austin, Texas 78711

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this Petition complies with Tex. R. App. P. 9.4, specifically using 14 point Century font and contains 1,529 words as counted by Corel WordPerfect version x6.

/s/ James Huggler James W. Huggler, Jr. 8 NO. PD-1014-15

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS SITTING AT

AUSTIN, TEXAS

STEVEN GOODE,

Petitioner

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Respondent

On Petition for Discretionary Review To the Court of Appeals Fifth Supreme Judicial District Cause No. 05-14-00651-CR

APPENDIX

9 STEVEN MICHAEL GOODE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 05-14-00651-CR

COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIFTH DISTRICT, DALLAS

2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6741

July 1, 2015, Opinion Filed

NOTICE: PLEASE CONSULT THE OPINION TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR CITATION OF MEMORANDUM OPINION UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. Opinion by Justice Whitehill PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] On Appeal A jury convicted Steven Michael from the County Court At Law No. 1, Goode of possession with the intent to Kaufman County. Texas Trial Court deliver four grams or more but less than Cause No. 30921CC. 200 grams of methamphetamine. The trial court found the enhancement paragraph true, found that Goode committed the COUNSEL: For Appellants: Russ offense as part of a criminal street gang, Henrichs, Dallas, TX. and sentenced Goode to thirty years' imprisonment. For Appellees: Sue Korioth, Erleigh In three issues, Goode argues that the: Norville Wiley, Kaufman, TX. (i) trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (ii) trial court erred in JUDGES: Before Justices Francis, Lang- admitting gang affiliation evidence during Miers, and Whitehill. Opinion by Justice the guilt-innocence phase because it was Whitehill. impermissible character-conformity evidence; and (iii) evidence is insufficient OPINION BY: BILL WHITEHILL to support his conviction. Concluding that his arguments lack merit, we affirm the

10 trial court's judgment. the truck. When Goode consented to a search of the truck, Schumann found half I. Background of a joint in Blevins's cigarette pack. Texas State Trooper Devin Gonzalez Blevins, who was later identified as an was a member of a task force informant, also had methamphetamine investigating the Aryan Brotherhood of hidden in the crotch of her pants. Blevins Texas (ABT) and ABT's and Goode were both arrested, and Goode methamphetamine distribution. In was charged with possession with intent connection with the investigation, Goode, to deliver methamphetamine in an amount and another ABT member, Rusty Duke, of [*3] four grams or more but less than [*2] were under surveillance. 200 grams, enhanced by a prior felony conviction. A fellow task force member, Officer The trial court denied Goode's motion Steve Lair, told Trooper Gonzalez that to suppress the drug evidence. Before Goode was en route to pick up some trial, the State amended the indictment to methamphetamine at a house Duke used include an allegation that Goode as a "Trap House."1 Duke was later committed the offense "as a member of a observed at the Trap House. Goode's criminal street gang." The trial court truck was also seen there, with a female denied Goode's motion to quash the passenger in the front seat. When Goode amended indictment. left the Trap House, Gonzalez told The case was tried to a jury. During Trooper Schumann, who was on routine trial, the State introduced evidence of traffic patrol, that Goode's truck might be Goode's ABT membership and of ABT's carrying narcotics. Gonzalez asked structure and operating methods. Defense Schumann to make a traffic stop if he counsel objected that the evidence could. constituted impermissible character evidence and was more prejudicial than 1 Gonzalez explained that a "Trap probative. The trial court overruled the House" is a residence used solely for objections and allowed the defense a the distribution of narcotics. running objection to that evidence. Schumann saw Goode's truck going The jury found Goode guilty. The trial east on the highway and followed it. court found the enhancement paragraph Schumann initiated a stop after he saw the true, found that Goode committed the truck make an unsafe lane change. offense as part of a criminal street gang, Schumann asked Goode and his female and sentenced Goode to thirty years' passenger, Carole Blevins, to get out of imprisonment.

11 evidence in the light most favorable to the II. Analysis ruling. See State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A. Issue No. 1: Did the Trial Court Err We first note that Goode's briefing on in Denying the Motion to Suppress? this issue is inadequate. We locate Goode's first issue argues that the trial Goode's argument that Gonzalez lacked court erroneously denied his motion to "sufficient credible information to pass on suppress because the "stop and detention to Officer Schumann," and could not of [his] truck was impermissible and did "reliably and justifiably provide [*5] [*4] not provide [the officer] a legitimate information to Officer Schumann to make basis for making the stop and subsequent the traffic stop in the first place," in the arrest," and because Gonzalez did not last paragraph under the issue. The have "sufficient credible information to briefing is fifteen pages long with ten of pass on to Officer Schumann." the fifteen pages consisting of direct We review a trial court's ruling on a quotes of testimony given at the motion to suppress evidence under a suppression hearing. Over four pages are bifurcated standard of review. Turrubiate quotes of general case law. As to the v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. Crim. traffic violation, Goode states that he App. 2013). We give almost total challenged whether a traffic violation was deference to the trial court's findings of committed at the hearing on the motion to historical fact that are supported by the suppress, and "the points raised by record and its application of the law to defense counsel are re-urged here." facts if the resolution of those questions Because Goode fails to proffer any turns on an evaluation of credibility and analysis or argument to support this demeanor. Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d argument on appeal, we reject his 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We complaint. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); review de novo the trial court's McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d 47, 49 n. 2 application of the law to the facts when (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). the issue does not turn on credibility and Regardless, an officer may stop and demeanor. Id. The trial court is the detain a person if the officer has exclusive trier of fact and judge of the reasonable suspicion that a traffic credibility of the witnesses and the weight violation is in progress or has been to be given to their testimony at the committed. McVickers v. State, 874 suppression hearing. State v. Ross, 32 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). An objectively valid stop is not unlawful In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a just because the detaining officer has motion to suppress, we must view the some ulterior motive for making the stop. 12 Crittenden v. State, 899 S.W.2d 668, 674 behavior. Consequently, Schumann (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Ordinarily, a initiated a traffic stop. When he did so, he violation of a traffic law committed in also noticed that the truck's third brake view of a police officer is sufficient light was out. authority for a traffic stop. See Lemmons We conclude that although the issue is v. State, 133 S.W.3d 751, 756 (Tex. App.-- inadequately briefed, the traffic stop was Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd). based on a reasonable suspicion that In findings of fact and conclusions of Goode had committed a traffic violation. law, the trial court found that, when he Therefore, the trial [*7] court did not err stopped the vehicle, Trooper Schumann in denying the motion to suppress. had reasonable suspicion [*6] to believe that Goode had violated transportation B. Issue No. 3: Was The Evidence code § 545.053(a). See TEX. TRANSP. Sufficient to Prove that Goode CODE ANN. § 545.053(a) (West 2011) Possessed Methamphetamine with the (passing). The court also found, in Intent to Deliver? pertinent part, that when he stopped the Goode's third issue challenges the vehicle, Trooper Schumann had sufficiency of the evidence to support his reasonable suspicion to believe that conviction. Although the stated issue Goode was violating transportation code mentions both the possession and intent to section 547.3215. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE deliver elements, his argument discusses ANN. § 547.3215 (West 2011) (reflective only the possession element. According to devices). Goode, the evidence does not establish Schumann's testimony is consistent that he possessed narcotics at the time of with the trial court's findings. Schumann his arrest. testified that he followed the truck as it When an appellant challenges the traveled east on the highway in the right sufficiency of the evidence to support a lane. Schumann then saw the truck move conviction, we review all the evidence in into the left lane, pass a vehicle that had the light most favorable to the verdict to entered the highway, and move back into determine whether any rational trier of the right lane "before it was safely-- fact could have found the essential coming clear of the passed vehicle." elements of the offense beyond a Schumann said that this constituted reasonable doubt. Wise v. State, 364 passing unsafely because it did not allow S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). sufficient distance between the truck and We co ns ider b o th d i r e c t a n d the passed vehicle, which caused the circumstantial evidence and all reasonable driver of the passed vehicle to have to inferences that may be drawn from the slow down or change his driving 13 evidence in making our determination. 2006). But presence or proximity, Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 combined wi t h o t h er direct or (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). If the evidence is circumstantial evidence, may establish conflicting, we "presume that the possession beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor Blevins, the informant, was with of the prosecution and defer to that Goode when they were stopped by the determination." Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 903 police. She testified about (i) her prior (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. knowledge of ABT member Rusty Duke 307, 326, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 and his methamphetamine business, (ii) (1979)). Goode's statements to her about Duke To prove possession, the State must being in that business, (iii) her show that the accused: (1) exercised care, conversations with Goode in which he custody, [*8] control, or management said that they were going to meet Duke over the contraband, and (2) knew the and pick up methamphetamine for Goode substance was contraband. TEX. HEALTH & to front for Duke, (iv) how she had SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.002(38), fronted drugs for Duke before, and [*9] 481.112 (West 2010 & Supp. 2014); (v) her telling Goode about Duke's Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402, 406 methamphetamine operations. Blevins (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). To meet this was a female ABT "feather wood," which standard, the State must show that is a woman who is married to or the Goode's connection with the girlfriend of an ABT member and is methamphetamine was more than loosely affiliated with that organization. fortuitous. Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 406. She testified that, as an ABT feather Control over a controlled substance need wood, she had no choice but to go along not be exclusive, but can be jointly on the trip. She also said that on the way exercised by more than one person. See to Duke's house she and Goode smoked McGoldrick v. State, 682 S.W.2d 573, 578 part of a joint, which Goode then told her (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Taylor v. State, to put in her cigarette pack. Half of the 106 S.W.3d 827, 831 (Tex. App.--Dallas joint remained there when they were 2003, no pet.). If the defendant was not in pulled over. exclusive possession of the controlled Blevins described the trip to Duke's substance, the State is required to present Trap House to pick up the evidence linking him to it. See Taylor, methamphetamine, Goode's meeting with 106 S.W.3d at 830-31. Mere presence at Duke right before she and Goode got in the contraband's location is not sufficient his white Ford truck, and how he placed to establish possession. Evans v. State, the drugs on the truck's console as they 202 S.W.3d 158, 162 (Tex. Crim. App. drove off in Goode's truck. 14 Blevins explained that, as the police Blevins testified that Goode was the light came on, Goode gave her the one who set up the deal with Duke. None methamphetamine and said, "you need to of Goode's letters asked Blevins where put this on you." Blevins understood that she had gotten the methamphetamine. to mean she needed to "crotch it," so she Blevins also said that the task force would put the drugs down her pants. When the not have been aware of the drug officer pulled them over, he separated transaction between Goode and Duke had them from each other. While the officer it not been for [*11] her. was talking to Goode, the drugs were Blevins's testimony was sufficient to "down in [Blevins's] pants." link Goode to the narcotics and to show When the officer searched the truck that he exercised care, custody, and and found the joint, Blevins [*10] told control and knew that it was contraband. him it was hers. The officer then asked Goode acknowledges Blevins's testimony, Blevins if she had anything else illegal on but argues it was not corroborated and her. Blevins replied, "No." The officer that Blevins's criminal history "casts then stated, "I know you have something doubt upon her testimony." As the sole on you." So Blevins retrieved the judge of Blevins's credibility and the methamphetamine from her pants. When weight to be given her testimony, she did so, she asked that the officer not however, the jury was free to believe her tell Goode, because he would "kill [her] if or not. See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d he found out." 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Goode and Blevins were arrested and We reject Goode's arguments taken to jail, where they remained for a regarding the accomplice witness rule few months. During that time, several (see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 38.14) letters were exchanged between them. because again, he relies on pages of direct Many of these letters were admitted into quotes of testimony from the trial, cites evidence. In one letter, Goode asked general case law supporting his argument Blevins not to be mad at him. Blevins and fails to analyze the issue. See TEX. R. understood that to mean his asking her to APP. P. 38.1(i); WorldPeace v. Comm'n carry the drugs. According to Blevins, at for Lawyer Discipline, 183 S.W.3d 451, that point Goode thought she had told the 460 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] police the drugs were hers. When Goode 2005, pet. denied) (holding that failure to wrote that he would make it up to her, offer argument, citations to record, or Blevins understood that to mean that citation to authority waives issue on Goode thought she would be taking the appeal). Moreover, had the issue been blame for the methamphetamine. preserved and properly briefed, sufficient

15 evidence was offered to corroborate reverse an evidentiary ruling if the ruling Blevins' testimony by connecting Goode is within the zone of reasonable to the offense. disagreement. Id. For the reasons For the above reasons, we decide discussed below, we conclude that the Goode's third issue against him. trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the gang related evidence C. Issue No. 2: Was Evidence of during the guilt-innocence phase. Goode's Aryan Brotherhood Affiliation We again point out that under this Admissible In the Guilt-Innocence issue, Goode's [*13] briefing is eighteen Phase? pages long. He direct-quotes trial Goode's second issue argues that [*12] testimony and argument for sixteen of the the trial court erred in admitting evidence eighteen pages. Another page is general, of his gang affiliation during the guilt- direct-quote case law that includes the innocence phase because the evidence rule 403 balancing factors. We are given was impermissible character-conformity a summary argument and directed to the evidence, the prejudicial effect of which applicable rule and general law but are outweighed its probative value. See TEX. not provided any analysis or argument to R. EVID. 403, 404(b). The record contains support this argument on appeal. We find extensive evidence regarding ABT, its this issue inadequately briefed. See TEX. operating methods, and appellant's R. APP. P. 38.1(i); McCarthy v. State, 65 involvement with that gang. Goode S.W.3d 47, 49 n. 2 (Tex. Crim. App. unsuccessfully objected to that evidence 2001). when offered through Officer Lair but Regardless, Rule 404(b) generally was granted a running objection. The trial prohibits "Evidence of other crimes, court, however, sustained specific wrongs, or acts . . . to show action in objections to detailed evidence regarding conformity therewith." Rule 404(b) ABT's structure. The admitted ABT applies to third-party acts as well as the evidence about which Goode complains defendant's acts. Castaldo v. State, 78 consists primarily of general information S.W.3d 345, 348-49 (Tex. Crim. App. regarding ABT's structure and specific 2002). information regarding the events leading Rule 404(b), however, provides that to Goode's arrest. evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts We review a trial court's evidentiary may be "admissible for other purposes rulings under an abuse of discretion such as proof of motive, opportunity, standard. Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). We will not identity, or absence of mistake or accident

16 . . . ." TEX. R. EVID. 404(b). The gang related evidence in the guilt- admissibility of evidence offered for these innocence phase for several reasons. purposes will almost always involve a First, the evidence was relevant balancing under Rule 403's substantial because the amended indictment alleges prejudice analysis. Castaldo, 78 S.W.3d. that Goode committed the offense as a at 350. And, member of a criminal street gang and the State must prove the indictment's The weight of the prejudice allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. to the defendant may be Moore v. State, 531 S.W.2d 140, 142 (Tex. different if the extraneous acts Crim. App. 1976); Butler v. State, 429 are a third party's rather than S.W.2d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968). his own, keeping in mind that Although the trial court denied Goode's the prejudice is greater if the motion to quash this allegation in the third party's acts [*14] in indictment, he does not complain about some way prove the the denial of the motion to quash or the defendant's character. validity of the allegation in the indictment The danger of prejudice to that he was a member of a criminal street the defendant is usually gang. The evidence regarding ABT's highest when evidence of the origins, structure, and operating methods defendant's extraneous acts is [*15] was directly relevant to prove that offered to prove that the Goode's participation in the ABT and that defendant acted the same way the ABT was a criminal street gang as in the offense on trial. The alleged in the indictment. danger of prejudice may be Second, the evidence was admissible much lower when evidence of to prove that Goode possessed the a third party's extraneous acts methamphetamine, which was not found is offered. If the third party's on Goode or in Goode's vehicle but was acts are in some way probative in the pants or crotch area of the of the defendant's character as passenger. As discussed above, the truck well as the third party's, the passenger, Blevins, was an informant and danger of prejudice may be an ABT feather wood working with a somewhere in between. Task Force Officer with the Department of Homeland Security's National Gang Unit, Lair, who was investigating ABT's Id. drug sales operations. Blevins was in We conclude the trial court did not frequent contact with Lair on the day in abuse its discretion in admitting ABT question, was giving Lair a stream of 17 information regarding the events as they its discretion in admitting the gang happened, and was the information source affiliation evidence in the guilt-innocence leading up to Goode's arrest. She gave phase. detailed testimony about the ABT's We thus decide Goode's second issue involvement in the transaction, Goode's against him. knowing possession of the methamphetamine, and his intent to III. Conclusion deliver the drugs. She also testified that, consistent with ABT practices, she was Having resolved all of Goode's issues included on the trip so that she could against him, we affirm the trial court's "crotch" the drugs if Goode got pulled judgment. over. "Crotching" is an ABT practice of Do Not Publish having a woman place illegal drugs in her TEX. R. APP. P. 47 pants, because most officers [*16] are /s/ Bill Whitehill men and not allowed to search that area. Blevins was the source that directly led to BILL WHITEHILL the arrest. JUSTICE For these reasons, we conclude that evidence regarding the ABT was relevant JUDGMENT to proving the allegations in the Based on the Court's opinion of this indictment, the existence of, and date, the judgment of the trial court is appellant's knowing participation in, a AFFIRMED. gang related crime, and Goode's possession of the methamphetamine. We Judgment entered July 1, 2015. conclude that the trial court did not abuse