Jaterin Mikeal Tyler v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 12, 2024
• Docket: 05-23-00293-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed February 12, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00293-CR

JATERIN MIKEAL TYLER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1814124-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Goldstein Appellant Jaterin Mikeal Tyler was charged with the felony offense of

aggravated kidnapping. He judicially confessed to committing the crime with a

firearm, pled guilty, entered into a plea agreement, and was placed on five years of

community supervision. After his subsequent arrest for aggravated sexual assault

and impersonating a public servant, the State moved to revoke his community

supervision or to adjudicate his guilt. Appellant pled “not true” to the alleged

violations. After a hearing, the trial court found the State’s allegations to be true

and sentenced appellant to thirty years of confinement. On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s adjudication

of guilt and two separate rulings admitting out-of-court statements over timely

hearsay objections. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified in this

memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

In his first issue, appellant argues the evidence did not sufficiently support

the trial court’s adjudication of guilt. The State’s motion to revoke or adjudicate

alleged multiple grounds, including appellant’s arrest for impersonating a public

servant during a subsequent sexual assault. The record reveals the trial court heard

evidence supporting this allegation and that it found the allegation to be true.

Although appellant argues the evidence is insufficient to support many of the

State’s allegations, his brief contains only one reference to his arrest for

impersonating a public servant averring that appellant “was a security officer, not a

policeman, and was misidentified by the complainant.” This solitary reference

lacks argument, citation to any facts, or citation to any authorities. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.1(g) & (i).

“Where, as here, the State alleges multiple violations of the terms of

community supervision, proof of any one of the alleged violations is sufficient to

support revocation.” Kilpatrick v. State, No. 05-21-00500-CR, 2022 WL 4591273,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 30, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citations omitted);

see also Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). “We must

affirm a trial court’s judgment if an appellant does not challenge each ground on

–2– which the trial court revoked community supervision.” Austin v. State, No. 05-21-

00941-CR, 2023 WL 3964004, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 13, 2023, no pet.)

(citing Olabode v. State, 575 S.W.3d 878, 880–81 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, pet.

ref’d)). Based on appellant’s failure to challenge the trial court’s finding of true

with respect to the impersonation of a public servant charge and the evidence it

heard in support thereof, we overrule his first issue.

Appellant’s second issue challenges the trial court’s overruling of a timely

hearsay objection after the State elicited testimony from Detective Gloria Doll

concerning a complainant’s out-of-court statements that she was an escort, that she

had made a date with someone, and that she had ended the date. Our review of the

record, however, reveals that neither the State’s query nor Detective Doll’s answer

concerned the State’s allegation that appellant impersonated a public servant.

Therefore, we need not decide whether the trial court erred when it overruled

appellant’s objection because any such error was harmless under Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). Johnson v. State, No. 05-21-00964-CR, 2023 WL

3476377, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 16, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. Specifically, (1) we have already overruled appellant’s legal

sufficiency challenge because he did not address the trial court’s adjudication of

guilt based on the impersonation of a public servant charge and (2) the record

reveals that the out-of-court statement at issue is unrelated thereto. Thus, any

potential error concerning appellant’s hearsay objection is harmless because a

–3– ground other than the alleged sexual assault supported revocation and adjudication.

See Hood v. State, No. 05-20-00902-CR, 2022 WL 2071111, at *5 (Tex. App.—

Dallas June 9, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Appellant’s third and final issue is initially framed as a challenge to the trial

court’s overruling of a timely hearsay objection after the State elicited additional

testimony from Detective Gloria Doll about the alleged sexual assault. Appellant’s

brief, however, argues that the trial court’s overruling of his hearsay objection

denied him his rights under the Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment to

the United States Constitution. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI.

Confrontation clause claims must be preserved via a timely and specific

objection. Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317, 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Deener v.

State, 214 S.W.3d 522, 527 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. ref’d). The record

reveals appellant did not object to Detective Doll’s testimony based on the

Confrontation Clause; instead, his objection to the trial court was limited to

hearsay. Thus, we overrule appellant’s third issue because he did not preserve it.

See Rimes v. State, No. 05-21-00038-CR, 2022 WL 3593282, at *4 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Aug. 23, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.).1

1 As appellant combined his arguments relative to Issues 2 and 3, to the extent he challenges Issue 2 as a Confrontation Clause due process violation, we overrule the second issue for failure to preserve it as well.

–4– Finally, our review of the record reveals two errors in the judgment.

Specifically, the judgment states appellant pled true to the motion to adjudicate and

that the terms of his plea bargain were “30 YEARS TDC”; neither statement

reflects the truth. Instead, there was no plea agreement with respect to the motion

to revoke or adjudicate, appellant pled not true to the motion, and after finding the

State’s allegations to be true the court sentenced him to 30 years.

When a record contains the necessary information, we may modify an

incorrect judgment to correct clerical errors. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v.

State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d

526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (en banc). Here, the record shows

that appellant pleaded not true to the allegations prior to the hearing on the motion

to revoke. Because the trial court’s judgment states otherwise, we modify the

section of the judgment entitled “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” to state “Not

True.” See Luna v. State, No. 05-22-00308-CR, 2022 WL 5113139, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Oct. 5, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). Additionally, because the record

shows there was no plea bargain agreement at the motion to revoke or adjudicate

stage, we modify the judgment to delete the language “30 YEARS TDC” in the

section of the trial court’s judgment for “Terms of Plea Bargain.” See Goodner v.

State, No. 05-22-01080-CR, 2024 WL 260469, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24,

2024, no pet. h.).

–5– Having overruled each of appellant’s three issues, we affirm the judgment of

the trial court as modified.

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN Do Not Publish JUSTICE TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 230293F.U05

–6– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

JATERIN MIKEAL TYLER, On Appeal from the Criminal District Appellant Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas County, Texas No. 05-23-00293-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F-1814124-K. Opinion delivered by Justice The State of Texas, Appellee Goldstein. Justices Carlyle and Breedlove participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:

the section of the judgment entitled “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” is modified to state “Not True”; and

the section of the trial court’s judgment entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to delete the words “30 YEARS TDC.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered February 12, 2024

–7–