In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-24-00126-CR ________________
RECARIDO ANTONIO TERRELL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F22-40391 ________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Recarido Antonio Terrell (“Terrell”) guilty of the offense of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and assessed punishment at forty years
imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02. The trial court sentenced him
accordingly. On appeal, Terrell challenges his conviction and argues the evidence
is legally insufficient to support his conviction. He also challenges the admission of
alleged extraneous offenses presented during the punishment phase. Having
1 determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of
Terrell’s extraneous offenses and that the evidence is legally sufficient to support
Terrell’s conviction, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Background
On July 13, 2022, Terrell was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon for causing bodily injury to Casey, 1 a person with whom he had a dating
relationship, by shooting Casey in the leg. On March 11, 2024, Terrell’s trial began.
The State called William John Bessey, who testified that on July 13, 2022, he was
at work at Ohmstede, Limited in Beaumont, Texas. He stated that around 11:00 p.m.,
while inside the shop, he heard a woman screaming across the street. He explained
that he checked, and the woman appeared to be in distress and said she needed the
police, so he called 911. Bessey described the woman as middle-aged, African
American. He said that while he was on the phone with 911, the woman indicated
that she had been shot by her boyfriend near the freeway. Bessey’s call to 911 was
admitted as evidence and played for the jury.
Bessey testified that the woman was barefoot and said that she jumped out of
her boyfriend’s red vehicle. Bessey stated that the police and EMS arrived, and he
1 We refer to the victim by a pseudonym to conceal her identity. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 30 (granting crime victims “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process[]”). 2 spoke with law enforcement. Bessey testified that later he gave a full statement that
was consistent with his testimony at trial. Bessey stated that he never saw Terrell or
the red vehicle around his jobsite. According to Bessey, his employer is the only
business in that area of downtown.
Next, Connor Davis Rushing, an employee with Beaumont Fire & EMS
testified that he responded to a call from dispatch regarding a shooting at 690
Harrison Avenue in Beaumont, Texas on July 13, 2022. Rushing testified that he
made contact with Casey, the person in need of medical attention, and observed
abrasions to her arm, right leg, and face, along with a gunshot entry and exit wound
to her right leg/buttock area. He stated that Casey’s abrasions were consistent with
road rash caused by jumping out of a moving vehicle. He believed that the gunshot
wound was an entry and exit wound and was consistent with someone who had been
shot with a firearm. Rushing stated that a firearm is capable of causing death or
bodily injury and is considered a deadly weapon.
According to Rushing, Casey stated that she was in the car with her boyfriend
when she was shot in the leg and she jumped from the vehicle, ran, and found refuge
at the shop where EMS located her. Casey was then transported to the hospital, and
Rushing prepared his report. Rushing testified that Casey’s abrasions were
consistent with someone jumping out of a car, but he did not see Terrell or a red
3 vehicle at or near the scene. Though Casey reported a boyfriend, Rushing did not
know how many boyfriends Casey had.
Randall Craig Dommert, criminal investigator with the Jefferson County
District Attorney’s Office, testified that he secured witnesses for trial. Dommert said
that he contacted Officer Cody Hussey with the Beaumont Police Department
regarding his availability for trial the week before, and Hussey indicated he was
available. Dommert explained that he contacted Officer Hussey the day before trial,
who indicated that he was sick and unavailable for his work shift the night before
due to his illness. Dommert stated that he had no reason to doubt Officer Hussey’s
representation.
The trial judge found that Officer Hussey was unavailable, and a transcript of
Officer Hussey’s testimony given in September 2023 and Hussey’s body camera
video from the night of the incident were admitted as evidence, read and published.
A portion of Hussey’s testimony was read where Hussey stated that he arrived on
the scene at 11:00 p.m., and Casey reported that she was riding in the passenger
vehicle on Interstate-10. Hussey testified that Casey reported that Terrell, her ex-
boyfriend, shot her. Hussey stated that Casey said that she and Terrell were arguing
in the car when she attempted to jump out after she saw a gun by Terrell’s side, but
Terrell demanded that Casey close the door. Hussey testified that Casey said that
4 Terrell then struck her in the back of the head a few times with the gun and shot once
into the floorboard. Hussey stated that Casey said, “[S]he risked it and jumped out
of the vehicle[]” and ran to the center median to look for help. Hussey testified Casey
stated that Terrell followed her to the center median, they got into a brief struggle,
and Terrell shot her once in the right leg. A portion of the cross-examination of
Hussey was read also wherein Hussey stated that someone who jumped out of a car
at seventy-five miles per hour would be injured and have “pretty bad” rash. Hussey
further confirmed that Casey stated that the incident involved her ex-boyfriend, and
she was shot once in the right leg.
The trial court admitted Hussey’s body camera video from the night of the
incident as evidence, and it was played during trial. In the video, officers are
speaking with Casey, and she names Terrell and states that he was driving a red
vehicle. The video also shows officers discussing that Casey related that while in the
car, Terrell shot towards her foot and hit her in the head with a gun, and Casey
jumped out of the car. An officer can be heard on the video stating that Terrell had
threatened to kill Casey, shot at her twice, and one bullet struck her leg.
Dommert also testified that he attempted to secure the presence of Detective
Mary Phillips, but she said that she was unavailable due to a medical appointment
in Houston. At the State’s request, the trial court admitted Detective Phillips’s
5 testimony from September 2023. Additionally, an audio recording of Phillips’s
phone call with Terrell was admitted as evidence and played for the jury. On the call,
Terrell denies shooting Casey and states that he last saw Casey the day before, on
his lunch break around 12:30 p.m.
Officer Craig Tyler Murphy, a patrol officer with the Beaumont Police
Department, testified that on July 14, 2022, he was dispatched to a house fire at 3734
Hebert Alley, Beaumont, Jefferson County around 2:30 a.m. Murphy testified that
the home was “completely engulfed” when he arrived, and a red vehicle with power
lines lying on top was parked close to the front of the home. The vehicle had a Texas
buyer’s tag, and Murphy noticed a bullet hole in the front passenger door. Murphy
explained that the bullet hole “looked more like an exit like if a shot was fired from
inside the vehicle.” With the help of dispatch, Murphy testified that he determined
that the water bill at the home was in the name of Casey, and the vehicle was
registered to Terrell. Photos of the scene were admitted as evidence. Murphy
testified that the vehicle was towed, because they believed it was involved in an
earlier aggravated assault.
According to Murphy, he believes that jumping out of a car going seventy-
five miles per hour would result in road rash and injury, depending on how you
landed. He testified that the vehicle was parked close to the house at a weird angle
6 like someone parked in a rush. He did not see Terrell at the scene and did not know
how long the bullet hole had been in the door. He testified that he did not know how
long the vehicle was parked there.
Next, Aaron Lewallen, Detective with Beaumont Police Department, testified
that he is trained in analyzing cellphone data. He described how the analysis works
and how cellphone towers are used to provide “a general location” of a cellphone.
He explained that he conducted an analysis of the data for cellphone numbers ending
in 3636 and 2568. He was also provided with certain addresses in Port Arthur and
Beaumont, including 3734 Hebert Alley. Lewallen testified that the analysis
revealed that both cellphones were in the area of 3734 Hebert Alley at 7:30 p.m. on
July 13, 2022. The analysis further confirmed that the cellphones were around the
Port Arthur addresses that same day around 8:30 p.m., and both were traveling on
Interstate-10 in Beaumont around 10:30 p.m. Lewallen testified the data showed that
the cellphone ending in 2568, the defendant’s cell phone, was in the area of 3734
Hebert Alley at 1:48 a.m. on July 14.
Lewallen testified that he is positive that the program used to provide the
cellphone data was operating properly. The data does not provide the identity of the
person or persons travelling with the cellphones. Photos of the cellphone data with
map shading were admitted as evidence.
7 Lewallen stated that he would probably be severely injured if he jumped out
of a car traveling seventy-five miles per hour. He testified that the mapping of the
cellphone data has overlapping of both cellphones, and that suggests that the two
cellphones were within the sectors of the cell tower. Lewallen did not know who
lives at the address in Port Arthur where data of one cellphone indicated it had been.
He believed that the cellphone number ending in 3636 belonged to Casey, but he did
not verify that information with the phone company.
Next, Casey testified that she was thirty-two during trial and lived in
Beaumont. She identified Terrell as a former boyfriend of about three years. She said
that on July 13, 2022, she lived at 3734 Hebert Alley, and Terrell lived with her on
and off. She stated that on that day, she went to look at two homes, including one in
Port Arthur. Terrell called her about 6:30 or 7:00, and they met at Family Dollar on
Avenue A. She recalled Terrell driving a red vehicle, and he followed her to look at
the first house. Casey said that afterward, she got in Terrell’s vehicle, and they went
to Port Arthur. She stated that they did not go to the home on Hebert Alley.
According to Casey, around 11:00 p.m. she and Terrell were back in
Beaumont and traveling on Interstate-10 eastbound near downtown. She said that
Terrell was on the phone and when he ended the call, he pulled out a pistol and said,
“[B]itch, I’m about to kill you.” Casey stated that Terrell said that she told “some
8 drug dealers about some drugs[,]” but she denied knowing what Terrell was talking
about. She said that Terrell said, “[W]ell, I’m about to hurt you. I’m about to kill
you.” She stated that Terrell shot the pistol while she begged him not to hurt or kill
her. During this time, Terrell had fired the pistol and was still driving, and Casey
stated that she jumped out of the car and as a result, she hit her “head on the bank.”
She added that the bank was concrete. She did not know how fast they were traveling
when she jumped out of the car, but it felt like seventy-five miles per hour to her.
Casey denied any involvement in the sale or distribution of illegal narcotics or
controlled substances and stated that she worked two jobs.
Casey testified that after she jumped out of the car, Terrell swerved over, got
out, and tried to fight with her and said, “Bitch, you coming with me.” She stated
that she responded she was not leaving with him, and Terrell said, “[B]itch, give me
your phone…if you don’t come with me, I’m going to finish you off.” Casey said
that Terrell had already shot her in the leg, but she “took off” towards downtown
and hid in ditches. She stated that Terrell chased her for a little while but returned to
his car and left.
Casey testified that she was barefoot and ran towards a garage and yelled for
help and that she had been shot. She stated that a man at the business said for her to
“come over here[,]” but she declined because Terrell was looking on the loose and
9 had threatened to finish her off. The man called the police and ambulance, and both
arrived about five minutes later. She said that she provided information about who
shot her and the vehicle to the man while he was on the phone with 911, and he
passed along the information. When police arrived, she provided the same
information to police and EMS attendants, along with cellphone information. Casey
stated that she also spoke with Detective Phillips the next day and told her who shot
her and the manner it happened. It was the same story.
Casey testified that she was taken to the hospital and treated for a gunshot
wound in her hip, and the bullet exited her buttocks. She also sustained injuries to
her foot and head and had road rash on her arm and side. She said that she felt pain
when she was shot and jumped out of the car, and she still has scars and injuries. She
stated that Terrell shot her with a handgun, and she was afraid for her life.
Casey testified that she could not return to her house because it burned down
several hours later, which was the next morning. She stated that she was released
from the hospital around 3:15 a.m. While she was at Walgreen’s getting her
medicine, a detective contacted her and told her that her house had burned down,
and a red vehicle was in the yard. She later arrived at her home and was able to go
inside. She said that she was suspicious after she noticed that her 75-inch television,
10 washer, dryer and another television were missing, and it appeared someone took
the items before the fire.
Casey testified that there was no reason for Terrell’s vehicle to be at her home
less than three hours after he shot her. She stated that while her home did have
electrical problems in the past that caused the lights to flicker, it never caused a fire.
Casey identified photos previously admitted as evidence and stated that the car that
she was shot in is shown in front of her burned home with a bullet hole in the
passenger door.
Casey reiterated that there was no reason for the vehicle to be at her home and
that Terrell was not living in her home at that time. Photos of Casey’s injuries were
also admitted as evidence and Casey described the injuries. Casey confirmed that
Terrell caused her injuries. Casey later explained that her injuries were the result of
her getting out of the vehicle and that Terrell did not hit her. She stated that she
jumped out of the vehicle because Terrell had a handgun, she feared for her life, and
Terrell had shot her and was going to kill her.
Casey testified that her cellphone number ends in 3636 and though she could
not recall the last four digits of Terrell’s phone number, it was area code 769. Casey
stated that cellphone records showing the two numbers in the same area would reflect
her and Terrell being together that day. A video recording of Casey and Terrell
11 meeting at Family Dollar was admitted as evidence and Casey said that the video
showed her arriving at Family Dollar and Terrell arriving in his red vehicle around
7:30 p.m.
Casey admitted that she had no hard forensic evidence that Terrell was an
arsonist or thief. She did not know who all went inside her home after it burned. She
stated that if cellphone data suggested that she was on Interstate-10 heading to
Houston, that would be wrong because she was headed towards Lake Charles, and
she exited the vehicle near Willow Street. She agreed that cellphone data provided
the general area, and it is possible that the data provided included their location area
when they returned from Port Arthur.
Following deliberations, the jury found Terrell guilty of aggravated assault
and the punishment phase commenced.
The first witness during punishment, Troy Robinson, an investigator with the
Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office, testified that he is a fingerprint expert
and that the fingerprints on Terrell’s Jefferson County booking fingerprint card
matched the fingerprints in the documents from the state of Mississippi. Robinson
stated that additional matching identifying information included Terrell’s social
security number, name, date of birth and photo. Robinson testified that he has no
doubt that the person convicted in Mississippi is Terrell. The certified records from
12 Mississippi confirmed that Terrell was convicted of burglary twice in 1996, auto
theft in 1996, burglary in 1997, robbery in 2005, possession of marijuana in 2008,
and possession of contraband in prison in 2010. Robinson testified that the records
indicated that Terrell was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for the 2005 robbery
and three years in prison for possession of contraband in prison. Robinson stated that
the convictions are all felony convictions. Robinson testified that the records
indicated that Terrell possessed 109.5 grams of marijuana, and the contraband he
possessed in prison was a cellphone.
Next, Robert Gerard, a police officer with the Beaumont Police Department,
testified that on January 4, 2022, he and his partner were on patrol in the north end
of Beaumont. Gerard said that they stopped a vehicle driven by Terrell, and he
identified Terrell in the courtroom. Before making contact with Terrell, Gerard
testified that Terrell did not immediately pull over after his lights were activated,
and this typically indicates that the person is trying to conceal something or will flee.
However, Terrell eventually stopped, and he observed Terrell throw what he initially
believed to be crack cocaine out of the driver’s side window. Terrell was the only
person inside the vehicle. Another officer, Sergeant Simpson, recovered the items
that Terrell discarded on the ground, and it was pills. Gerard testified that they
13 searched the vehicle, and they recovered another pill and a small amount of
marijuana.
Gerard testified that Terrell was removed from the vehicle, and he was
nervous, shaky, and fell to the ground. EMS was called to the scene, and Terrell was
transported to the hospital but ultimately cleared and sent to jail. Terrell was arrested
for felony possession of a controlled substance. Footage of Gerard’s body camera
on the day of Terrell’s arrest was previously admitted as evidence and played for the
jury. Gerard testified that at the time of trial, he did not know if Terrell had been
convicted of possession of the items. Terrell did not advise Gerard of any medical
issues when he fell to the ground.
Sergeant Deron Simpson with the Beaumont Police Department testified that
he was working with Gerard on January 4, 2022, when they initiated a traffic stop
with Terrell. Simpson observed Terrell throw something out of the window and he
later recovered the pills that were thrown. Simpson said that the pills were
oxycodone hydrochloride, and it is a criminal offense to possess the pills without a
prescription. Simpson stated that he was wearing a body camera that day, and the
video of Simpson’s body camera was admitted as evidence and played for the jury.
Simpson did not know if Terrell was convicted for possession of the pills.
14 Marsha Cox, Jefferson County Regional Crime Lab analyst, testified that she
determined that the pills that Terrell possessed were anilino and phenethylpiperdine
(ANPP) and fentanyl. She stated that fentanyl is a Penalty Group 1B controlled
substance, and that possession of it is a felony. She did not know if Terrell was
convicted of possession of any controlled substance.
Finally, Devin Stelly, a deputy at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility,
testified that on December 17, 2023, he was assigned to the dorm where Terrell was
housed with other inmates, and after being suspicious of Terrell’s bedding, he
conducted a search of his bunk and located an improvised weapon. He described the
weapon, commonly referred to as a shank, as a long piece of metal, sharpened on
one end, and wrapped on the other end. Stelly said that the shank is a violation of
jail policy and Texas law and is a prohibited item. He stated that he also found an
improvised tattoo gun, another prohibited item.
The jury sentenced Terrell to forty years imprisonment.
On appeal, Terrell argues the trial court erred when it allowed evidence of
extraneous acts during the punishment phase of trial, and he challenges the legal
sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. In issue two, Terrell argues
that the evidence is legally insufficient to prove that Terrell committed the offense
of aggravated assault. Although Terrell states in his brief that the evidence was
15 legally insufficient in six areas, Terrell only argues that the accuser did not testify at
trial and was therefore not available for cross-examination in front of the jury. Terrell
adds that the evidence only demonstrates that he was in the area but not involved in
the aggravated assault. We address Terrell’s sufficiency challenge first, since if
meritorious, it would entitle him to rendition and judgment of acquittal. See
Benavidez v. State, 323 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (explaining that
insufficient evidence to support a conviction can render an acquittal); O’Reilly v.
State, 501 S.W.3d 722, 726 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2016, no pet.).
ISSUE TWO: SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
When there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational
factfinder could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt. See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899, 912 (Tex. Crim. App.
2010) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)); Hooper v. State, 214
S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The factfinder is the sole judge of the
witnesses’ credibility and weight to be given to their testimony. Tate v. State, 500
S.W.3d 410, 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Factfinders may draw multiple reasonable
inferences as long as each inference is supported by the evidence presented at trial.
16 Id. We must defer to the factfinder’s responsibility to fairly resolve conflicts in the
testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts
to ultimate facts. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. If the record contains conflicting
inferences, we must presume that the jury resolved such facts in favor of the verdict
and defer to that resolution. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899 n.13 (citations omitted);
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In addition, we
determine whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based on the combined
and cumulative force of all the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to
the verdict. Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778.
The Penal Code states that a person commits assault if he intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person’s
spouse; intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury,
including the person’s spouse; or intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact
with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will
regard the contact as offensive or provocative. Tex. Penal Code. Ann. § 22.01(a).
Section 22.02 of the Texas Penal Code provides that a person commits an offense of
aggravated assault if he commits assault as defined in section 22.01 and causes
serious bodily injury to another or uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the
commission of the assault. Id. § 22.02(a).
17 Analysis
The indictment in this case alleged that Terrell “did then and there
intentionally and knowingly and recklessly cause bodily injury to [Casey] … by the
use of a deadly weapon, namely, a firearm, by shooting [Casey] in the leg.” Terrell
argues that the accuser did not provide live testimony and was not cross-examined,
and he challenges the evidence confirms his presence in the area but not his
involvement.
The record confirms that Casey testified in-person and was cross-examined
by Terrell’s attorney on day two of trial. Casey testified that she and Terrell were
together on the day she was shot, and they travelled together to Port Arthur to look
at a house. She stated that while in the car, Terrell got a phone call and when he hung
up, he pulled out a pistol and threatened to kill her. Casey testified that Terrell
accused her of talking to drug dealers, threatened to kill her, and shot her with his
pistol after she jumped out of his vehicle. She testified that she got out of the moving
vehicle while they traveled on Interstate-10, and in addition to her gunshot wound,
she suffered abrasions and road rash on her feet, legs, arm and head.
In addition to Casey, two other witnesses that encountered Casey that night,
Bessey and EMT technician Rushing, both testified that Casey indicated to them that
she jumped out of Terrell’s car and he shot her. Additionally, the testimony of
18 Officer Hussey and his body camera video from the night of the incident also shows
that Casey related the same story to him about her injuries.
Also at trial, a cellphone data analyst testified that records indicated that
Casey’s and Terrell’s phones were together from approximately 7:30 p.m. to 10:30
p.m., though he conceded that he was unable to determine who was in possession of
the cellphones during that time. He testified that he is positive that the program used
to provide the cellphone data was operating properly.
While the evidence does not demonstrate who was in possession of Terrell’s
cellphone when records indicated that his phone and Casey’s cellphone were in the
same area at the time of the incident, the cellphone records along with Casey’s
testimony of the incident permitted the jury to reasonably infer that Terrell
committed the aggravated assault against Casey. See Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 413;
Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to
the jury’s verdict, we conclude the jury could have reasonably determined that
Terrell and Casey were in the vehicle together and that Terrell committed the
charged offense. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899, 912; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
We overrule issue two.
19 ISSUE ONE: ADMISSION OF EXTRANEOUS OFFENSE EVIDENCE
We now turn to Terrell’s first issue, in which he argues that the State failed to
prove he committed the extraneous offenses that were presented to the jury during
the punishment phase. Terrell also argues that the probative value of admitting the
extraneous offenses was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, and misled the jury.
We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence of extraneous offenses
for an abuse of discretion. Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622, 627 (Tex. Crim. App.
2003). “As long as the trial court’s ruling is within the ‘zone of reasonable
disagreement,’ there is no abuse of discretion, and the trial court’s ruling will be
upheld.” De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 343–44 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
(citation omitted); Moses, 105 S.W.3d at 627. Generally, when challenged on appeal,
a ruling admitting evidence of extraneous offenses will be found to fall within the
zone of reasonable disagreement “if the evidence shows that 1) an extraneous
transaction is relevant to a material, non-propensity issue, and 2) the probative value
of that evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.” De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 344. If a
trial court’s evidentiary ruling is correct under any applicable theory of law, we do
20 not disturb it even if the trial judge articulates an incorrect reason for the correct
ruling. Id.
The Code of Criminal Procedure permits evidence of a defendant’s prior
criminal record after a finding of guilty. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07,
§ 3. “To establish that a defendant has been convicted of a prior offense, the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) a prior conviction exists, and (2) the
defendant is linked to that conviction.” Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919, 921 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2007). While there is no “best evidence” rule or substantive law that a
prior conviction be proven in a specific manner, “evidence of a certified copy of a
final judgment and sentence may be a preferred and convenient means[]” though
other methods such as a defendant’s admission, testimony of a witness to a
defendant’s conviction who can identify the defendant, or documentary proof with
sufficient identifying information are other options. Id. at 921–22.
Analysis
During the punishment phase, the trial court admitted as evidence Terrell’s
booking record from Jefferson County that included Terrell’s fingerprints,
photograph, social security number, date of birth, and other identifying information.
Next, the trial court admitted certified records, commonly referred to as a “pen
packet,” from the State of Mississippi Department of Corrections detailing the
21 convictions of a person bearing the same name, 2 social security number, and date of
birth as Terrell. Before the admission of the evidence, Terrell objected and argued
that the pen packet was not properly authenticated because there were no
authenticating fingerprints and because certified copies from the State of Mississippi
do not satisfy the authenticity required for the State of Texas.
On appeal, Terrell argues that the State did not prove that Terrell committed
the offenses presented to the jury during the punishment phase of trial. We will first
consider the evidence of Terrell’s prior convictions in Mississippi. Here, the State
provided documents of Terrell’s prior convictions in Mississippi that were not only
certified and notarized by the Mississippi Department of Corrections, but the
documents also included identifying information such as fingerprints of Terrell.
Investigator Robinson testified that he is a certified fingerprint expert and that he
compared the fingerprints on Terrell’s Jefferson County booking fingerprint card to
the fingerprints in the pen packet from the state of Mississippi. Robinson concluded
that the fingerprints were the same, along with the other identifying information such
as name, social security number, date of birth, and photo. We therefore conclude that
2 Terrell’s first name is spelled differently in the Mississippi records; however, Terrell’s signature on his employment records, and the Mississippi and Texas records is spelled as we spell it herein. 22 the evidence effectively demonstrated that Terrell had a criminal record, including
prior felony convictions, in the State of Mississippi.
Terrell also challenges the admission of evidence of an arrest and Terrell’s
possession of a prohibited item in the Jefferson County Correctional Facility. To
preserve error to the admission of extraneous offenses, the defendant must first
timely object that the evidence is inadmissible under Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules
of Evidence and the objection must include the legal basis for the objection. Tex. R.
App. P. 33.1(a). A review of the record confirms that Terrell did not object to
evidence of his arrest or possession of a prohibited item. To present a complaint for
appellate review, the record must show that a timely complaint or objection was
made to the trial court and the trial court ruled on the matter. See id. Because the
record does not reflect that Terrell objected to the evidence, Terrell failed to preserve
any error on this issue.
Finally, Terrell argues that the probative value of the extraneous offenses was
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,
and misleading of the jury. Rule 403 permits a court to “exclude relevant evidence
if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of” any one of the
following: “unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Tex. R. Evid. 403. Again, the record
23 does not reflect that Terrell made a Rule 403 objection at trial when the challenged
extraneous offense evidence was offered at trial, and he has failed to preserve this
issue on appeal. See Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 687, 691–92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
(explaining that objection on appeal must comport with objection made at trial);
Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (explaining that the rules
generally require a timely, specific complaint); Smith v. State, No. 09-17-00302-CR,
2019 WL 1270817, at *6 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 20, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication) (concluding that where appellant failed to make 403
objection, he did not preserve error; see also Tex. R. Evid. 403; Tex. R. App. P.
33.1(a)(1)(A). Having considered all of Terrell’s arguments, we overrule issue one.
Conclusion
Having overruled each of Terrell’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
AFFIRMED.
W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice
Submitted on December 30, 2025 Opinion Delivered May 27, 2026 Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.