NUMBER 13-17-00218-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG CARLOS GARCIA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 428th District Court of Hays County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez1 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez2 1Retired Thirteenth Court of Appeals Justice Nelda Rodriguez, assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to the government code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.003 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). 2 This cause is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Because this is a transfer case, we apply precedent of the transferring court of appeals to the extent it differs from our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. Appellant Carlos Garcia appeals from his convictions of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and five counts of indecency with a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 21.11, 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). By ten issues, Garcia contends that the trial court (1) improperly denied his motion for severance (issue one), (2) allowed improper outcry witness testimony (issues two and three), (3) violated the confrontation clause (issue four), (4) admitted inadmissible evidence and excluded admissible evidence (issues five, six, seven, and eight), (5) failed to declare a mistrial (issue nine), and (6) committed cumulative error (issue ten). 3 We affirm. I. BACKGROUND The State charged Garcia with one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child (count one), three counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact (counts two, three, and four), and two counts of indecency with a child by exposure (counts five and six). See id. § 21.02 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.), § 21.11. The jury found Garcia guilty of the lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child on count one and guilty of counts two through six. See id. §§ 21.11, 22.021. Garcia received a thirty- five-year sentence for count one, a fifteen-year sentence for count two, a ten-year sentence for count three, a two-year sentence for count four, and a five-year sentence for count five. For count six, Garcia received a ten-year suspended sentence and was placed on community supervision. The trial court ordered counts one, two, five, and six to run concurrently and counts three and four to run consecutively. This appeal followed. II. SEVERANCE By his first issue, Garcia contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion 3 We have renumbered Garcia’s issues for purposes of our analysis. 2 to sever counts one through four from counts five and six. Specifically, Garcia argues that severance was required because counts one through four involved Y.G. while count five involved D.C. and count six involved M.C. 4 A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law We review a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals