Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Mark Anthony Hulsey v. State

Mark Anthony Hulsey v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 9, 2004
Docket06-03-00122-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Mark Anthony Hulsey v. State (Mark Anthony Hulsey 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
Mark Anthony Hulsey v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion



In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-03-00122-CR



MARK ANTHONY HULSEY, Appellant

 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                                              


On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17,490-2002


                                                 



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

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss



MEMORANDUM OPINION


            Mark Anthony Hulsey was convicted for aggravated sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, Hulsey contends his conviction should be reversed because (1) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court improperly  allowed  a  nine-year-old  child  to  testify  though  she  was  not  competent  to  do  so, and (3) the assessment of an automatic life sentence was improper because the evidence was factually and legally insufficient to support the jury's finding that his prior conviction in Arkansas was for a crime substantially similar to aggravated sexual assault in Texas. We affirm because we find the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, because allowing the complainant to testify was proper, and because proof of the Arkansas conviction was sufficient to support Hulsey's automatic life sentence.

1. Evidence Was Legally and Factually Sufficient to Support Conviction

            In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the relevant evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we are required to determine whether, considering all the evidence in a neutral light, the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Zuniga v. State, 2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 668, at *20 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 21, 2004).

            After questioning during which she indicated her ability to identify various body parts, the complainant testified Hulsey put his penis into her anus and, when he did so, her anus ripped. She also testified Hulsey told her not to tell anyone. The complainant's mother had a note from the complainant in which she wrote about the event and specifically recounted penetration of her anus. The note was introduced into evidence, but the mother did not testify. Kim Basinger, a sexual assault nurse examiner, testified that, when she examined the complainant several weeks after the incident, the complainant told Basinger that Hulsey attempted to have anal sex with her and that in the process he penetrated her anus—he "got in half way." Basinger testified the complainant's anus was scarred, consistent with anal penetration around the time of the incident.

            There is no evidence to the contrary. Hulsey's counsel showed there were several other males of varying ages living in the home with the child at or near the time of the incident, but could provide no proof other than simple access to the child. The child testified clearly and consistently that Hulsey was the perpetrator. As pointed out by counsel, the child did identify the penis by different terms at different times, but that, standing alone, does not throw doubt on the verdict. The evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the verdict.

2. Allowing Complainant to Testify was Proper

            Hulsey also contends the trial court erred by concluding the child was a competent witness. We have reviewed the record, and it is apparent this matter was never placed before the trial court for its consideration. In the absence of an objection, the issue is not preserved for review. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; McGinn v. State, 961 S.W.2d 161, 165 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Hill v. State, 3 S.W.3d 249, 253 (Tex. App—Waco 1999, pet. ref'd). Besides, from the record, we can see that the complainant was a cogent and competent witness.

3. Proof of Prior Arkansas Conviction Sufficient to Support Automatic Life Sentence

            Hulsey also contends the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the foreign conviction alleged as an enhancement was substantially similar to the present offense and thus his conviction was improperly enhanced.

            A prior Texas conviction alleged for enhancement may be established by certified copies of a judgment and sentence and authenticated copies of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice records, including fingerprints, supported by expert testimony matching them to the known prints of the defendant. Beck v. State, 719 S.W.2d 205, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753, 758 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd).

            For an out-of-state penitentiary packet to suffice in Texas as evidence of a prior criminal record at the punishment phase of a trial, the State must either prove or ask the trial court to take judicial notice of what the sister state considers sufficient documentary proof of a final conviction, or the foreign documents must be the functional equivalent of a Texas judgment. Langston v. State, 776 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Here, the State tendered an Arkansas penitentiary packet, but did not ask the trial court to take judicial notice of Arkansas law. Hulsey's counsel affirmatively said he had "no objection" to the admission of the penitentiary packet, which was admitted into evidence.

            Hulsey's argument on appeal is limited to his assertion that the penitentiary packet evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the elements of the offense for which he was convicted in Arkansas were substantially similar to the elements of an offense enumerated in Section 12.42(c)(2) of the Texas Penal Code, including, in relevant part, aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42(c)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2004–2005).

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

Related

Carriere v. State
84 S.W.3d 753 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
McGinn v. State
961 S.W.2d 161 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Hill v. State
3 S.W.3d 249 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Langston v. State
776 S.W.2d 586 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Johnson v. State
23 S.W.3d 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Zuniga v. State
144 S.W.3d 477 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Beck v. State
719 S.W.2d 205 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mark Anthony Hulsey v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-anthony-hulsey-v-state-texapp-2004.