).0A&£ T5" 77/£ CoutLt <d( Gktt^TjJ/d Appeals PD-1243-15

vS ixf fc ApO£ Il&~fe, J udfcjem^rv/4" Bo^fe, CbaA/+^ .TSCfl-3 ftdJoh K-, Burgess F($0/w JSrrfl -ftoQilMe^ Couri of Appeals Courvs-cjc,

f\0(MSf Plesatv-t . TK 15510 Zo0( ^/Vtrvi Sh

RL: AOPdfote. C/kS^ AfotmW (D(o 'M - 0(9(3 I-C£-

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS SEP 212015 Ab®!AcoslasG!erk 8. "lAoU of Oqu\<L(JTS> GtCourvAs

3. failure. To X AAs4r<xe-f~ Am^ij Os#f HMrfrck^ LOA6 A/U CiOCDn^phcLt. AS m A- nvAter of Lfl-ul

E.^Tr0ifll)0tA£ £rfft-«J££- &L/?de/^Ce_ XM+ir^uceJ > fyf&kvce^ fo SuiVO&fiLt KVs Ce/JvictioA/ 9 Xv IS^ooLs \f Sfo4e_»

SvLhSunveA &W A proper Iu Co^AucJreA \e&p\ S>*Jtfiue*icy rejr'teus QNC& t TiWe--(We AbD/i-sAei ^fU* Sec^rrffe -pAciuffi SocfC'xu&sxJCUf rt/tAe.^ >tecf ^a&I/sJUJ ttf CleuuiS tf, 5-fvrhfe^, 9Z2- t>,V)*2-<k I'LL (T^KL&cy^ . Add, \ciciL> )?a^A l~fc> 0nD«<^_i/,.

A- TK^ "tesfj-ft/z/vq offtoeri adrn!H"eA Hiva-t /Uo drujas uJcre^ roiAfiA £)f0 fy[cHe^)ry , T/wf- i"AeM had nJcwcr scct^ dtrms> bej^ Sola of (V&hitAjey's residence, anjd fi/A Tfcoj h*d Ajo D&T<Dtff\{ &U0a>leJUe- of uvjkdfO , where , Of ft-tf^vu #^fe uokow^ TW /We44va*^pkefA/wiA^- ^ew^ oUr//^j fk^- 1?A>Pf;c stops loats

TKompsaivJ iesf.ftJ HM he hft4 /uo perSWo.1 kjuo^leije of bOko O^aJ^dl <fU £k3A(;gAt or u)lr\o p<A fie Ao^AupKeffr^T/i/c iVw 4. (TlcfcAeK cIa'i/mA &hi /vtol iwuklc ccxdicoa dueL fo A £A/o

5, nnCfe(vJpy Qrjly Chfillaucpd five Steffici^Of of H^ ejfkhlVCe- ^fo—£e 1aj tUt, hbs&iJce, #£ /Tl;fc.ke./ti accjo&olicx- tesfim.oiou.

rW\f<r\y£} -PouvYi Tfoaf fk«, Sfof^ proola£<so( SuffiaU/oi" eu'/dtrJ^e.

To Compote flM+ckdt'S Acc&/*~pl'isA i^s\iiYX>n)u . U^c rVced (V<st (Address "fie, 5tifQ&;e,ui&* of &,\nde*)ce- ,

LOi A £&r5>Oti CMNot be Co/JV(deA of A Cni^t, o^ fLc_ bflJC&CiTokccjt-hJ irCsfirvioNtf of A/v #cc<oa^ (;oe^. (f<N PrCCGtAspltatL, Ts: Sonc&DKte- u)h<ofe. QarT,cApdTloro Tfv> Yhc QriMsL LOould pe<r/^:t A;s Cjowtck'io*) foe "ftv^ CW/kc-

IS Aro bazoM-pl)c€L +o Hix Cslt**- of fbssck^lo/v Or y\ ^lo^frelled (SotL>5f/wce , if /+ l/-v*-s &o/HA».if(Scl - It Udw defer/v^/u^ +Ut £>e6p€£/vexr TVufcUdl is aw Accomplice , V;j f7uL. v/a*^ /nusT ^o ^£fer>x;*/a- zJAcfLcr- *?• Th<u 6+4t<^- CtfrtceA +b fr\XcLet( A3 A CU>-Jlefei^df 3. . t)f\L^fH ^(xi/w.ffeJ A- OfOooSeA l/VvwfiVvs in/sfr^chcw. f* U^C cetddos No (Qbi^ldft/ rl^/wsJI/a^ uOheiLw Alc(Wrv U)As e,rtft¥&J f&> 4L^ So^orif:c }/usWcf,4w W ^^fwift^cJt

TO« • h JL(5>7 60^/7 etitiabeAS,

H, Prtxvjtr for k^\fei K

p^r+?e?^oc\*OK f^ ^Vv& &rfm*L uWcV pe/r^U ^®S CdiW?^^ -fcr

Lc 5f^^ of £W - <£ ^e* «>* ctbk

£. <StPthn*dr of Proceed Msioty 0(0 Jav<^ 5.SL015 00\^\0(\J U)fc> /AAtA<L MftZ-froJi

Lftui L*u (T/WZ^t /Hr^isfir tfcOC- ATC-060 (Rev. 7) Attachment 2

NOTICE OFFENDER NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE Under both Federal law (28 U.S.C § 1746) and State law (V.T.C.A. Civil Practice & Remedies Code, §132.001-132.003), offenders incarcerated in Texas may use an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury in place ofa written declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit sworn before a Notary Public.

In arequest for Notary Public service, each offender must explain why an Unsworn Declaration is insufficient before Notary Public service will be provided. ************ ****************************************************************** An example ofan unsworn declaration pursuant to State law is asfollows: "My name is f^eLcmell M f^H&nfJ my date ofbirth is ^~c33~7q3 (First) (Middle) (Last) ' and my inmate identifying number, is Il0>$'?8' I . Iam presently incarcerated in /W-l ^trxtW in ftkJeg4?n.* (Collections unit name) -**i/-o Ar*-> (^ity) , 7g XjulS Aj oCPJ> . Ideclare under penalty of (County) (State) (Zip Code) perjury thatthe foregoing is trueand correct.

E^utedonteA-dayof-%A»*" ,2ol£. .. (QffendersigMture) An example ofan unsworn declarationpursuant to Federal law is asfollows: i (fish 4.11 ftlpH-eeiAtJ (insert offender name and TDCJ number), being p1|Liy uJLJ^i in W ' f ^ ^ U«U (insert TDCJ unit name), in A(idkrior\ County, Texas, declare uj/der penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true

\*♦«**•**♦*******«*********♦********■*****************************************■■ NOTICE NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE DENIAL Regarding your request for Notary Public service, insufficient justification was provided necessitating Notary Public service. However, you may proceed with an Unsworn Declaration.

(Signature -Notary) (Date) left McHenry's house.12 When considered in connection with the other evidence in the case, the officer's testimony could give rise to the inference that McHenry was a drug dealer; however, the officers did not directly state that McHenry had committed an extraneous offense. See Rankin, S.W.2d at 708 (victim's friend and sister also testified that defendant fondled their "privates"); Lemmonsv. State, 75 S.W.3d 513,521 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. refd) (three witnesses allowed to testify that murder defendant robbed them at gunpoint). On cross-examination, the officers admitted that no drugs were found on McHenry's person, that they had never actually observed a drug transaction at McHenry's residence, and that they could not state from personal knowledge that the drugs discovered during the traffic stops were acquired from McHenry.

The three officers who testified to the extraneous bad acts were the first three witnesses to

testify in the case. While the jury received a proper limiting instruction in the jury charge, the charge was given about six hours after testimony began in this one-day trial. See Lemmons, 75 S.W.3d at 525 (extraneous-offense testimony elicited through three witnesses during last three or four hours of multi-day trial). Absent evidence to the contrary, the jury is presumed to follow the instructions set forth in the trial court's charge. Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 172 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1996), overruled on other grounds by Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). McHenry has not rebutted this presumption.

Under these circumstances we conclude that, in the context of the entire case against McHenry, the trial court's error in admitting the testimony in question did not have a substantial

l2The State briefly mentioned the testimony during its opening statement and did not emphasize the evidence during its closing argument. or injurious effect on the jury's verdict and did not affect McHenry's substantial rights. See King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Accordingly, we disregard the error and overrule this point of error. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b).

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Jack Carter Justice

Date Submitted: April 15, 2015 Date Decided: June 5, 2015 Do Not Publish

jt^ aa

^4 ^ %^ aa

P re

I/O >3 -£ a! •••j § ^ ^ Q n .•