Opinion issued February 15, 2007

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-05-00622-CR

JEREMY STEVEN ROBINSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 984059

__________________________________________________________________

CONCURRING OPINION

I join the opinion of the panel with the exception of the majority's determination that evidence that appellant made a threatening telephone call from Dallas to Houston to attempt to extort money from the Praker family and that appellant was arrested while returning from attempting to steal a third car was not evidence of flight and was therefore inadmissible. I believe this evidence is plainly admissible to show the context and circumstances of appellant's flight and thus to support the inference that appellant was conscious of his guilt of the crime with which he was charged and that he, therefore, engaged in a series of blended and interwoven acts--including these acts--to flee and to continue to flee. See Burks v. State, 876 S.W.2d 877, 903-04 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). I fear that labeling this evidence inadmissible while holding that integrally related evidence of the same type is admissible sends a mixed signal to litigants and courts and will lead to confusion. I do agree that, if it had been error to admit this evidence, the error would have been harmless.

Evelyn V. Keyes

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Hanks.

Publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).