Montalvo v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Montalvo v. State

882 S.W.2d 902, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 2023, 1994 WL 417412

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedAugust 11, 1994

DocketNos. 13-93-273-CR, 13-93-312-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 882 S.W.2d 902 (Montalvo 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

Montalvo v. State, 882 S.W.2d 902, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 2023, 1994 WL 417412 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

YAÑEZ, Justice.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault (cause number 93-CR-12-E), indecency with a child and attempted indecency with a child (cause number 92-CR-1080-E). The court assessed punishment at 70 years’ imprisonment on each offense, to run concurrently. By a single point of error appellant complains of the introduction of extraneous offense evidence. We affirm.

Appellant complains that the trial court erred in allowing testimony of a prior attempted sexual assault on the victim’s sister. The complaining witness’s mother .testified over appellant’s objection that she chased appellant out of her home when she learned that he tried to take off her daughter’s shorts. After reviewing the record, we find that appellant’s complaint has been waived. Although appellant objected to testimony of the victim’s mother regarding a sexual assault attempt on another one of her children, this same evidence came in later without objection. Anderson v. State, 717 S.W.2d 622, 628 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 944, 110 S.Ct. 3232, 110 L.Ed.2d 678 (1990); Morin v. State, 800 S.W.2d 328, 330 n. 1 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1990, no pet.). Elicited by appellant on cross-examination, it does not appear that appellant was attempting to rebut or to meet the effect of that evidence previously admitted over objection. We overrule appellant’s point of error.

The State has submitted a brief raising an issue of unassigned error based on the jury charge.¹ Appellant has not raised any additional points of error. Any discussion of the issue would be purely advisory. Having overruled appellant’s only point of error, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

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

OPINION

YAÑEZ, Justice.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault (cause number 93-CR-12-E), indecency with a child and attempted indecency with a child (cause number 92-CR-1080-E). The court assessed punishment at 70 years’ imprisonment on each offense, to run concurrently. By a single point of error appellant complains of the introduction of extraneous offense evidence. We affirm.

Appellant complains that the trial court erred in allowing testimony of a prior attempted sexual assault on the victim’s sister. The complaining witness’s mother .testified over appellant’s objection that she chased appellant out of her home when she learned that he tried to take off her daughter’s shorts. After reviewing the record, we find that appellant’s complaint has been waived. Although appellant objected to testimony of the victim’s mother regarding a sexual assault attempt on another one of her children, this same evidence came in later without objection. Anderson v. State, 717 S.W.2d 622, 628 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 944, 110 S.Ct. 3232, 110 L.Ed.2d 678 (1990); Morin v. State, 800 S.W.2d 328, 330 n. 1 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1990, no pet.). Elicited by appellant on cross-examination, it does not appear that appellant was attempting to rebut or to meet the effect of that evidence previously admitted over objection. We overrule appellant’s point of error.

The State has submitted a brief raising an issue of unassigned error based on the jury charge.¹ Appellant has not raised any additional points of error. Any discussion of the issue would be purely advisory. Having overruled appellant’s only point of error, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

882 S.W.2d 902, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 2023, 1994 WL 417412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montalvo-v-state-texapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack