Michael Paul Parkinson v. State ( 2015 )

Opinion issued June 11, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00476-CR
———————————
MICHAEL PAUL PARKINSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 239th District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 72075
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Michael Paul Parkinson, was charged by indictment with four
counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. 1 Appellant pleaded not guilty. The
jury found him guilty on all four counts and assessed punishment at 45 years’
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(b) (Vernon Supp. 2014).
confinement on each count. In one issue, Appellant argues the trial court abused
its discretion by allowing a State’s witness to testify to matters outside of her
expertise.
We affirm.
Background
On multiple occasions, Appellant sexually assaulted his then-11-year-old
daughter. The daughter ultimately made an outcry, leading to Appellant’s
indictment.
At trial, the State sought to introduce some of Appellant’s medical records.
The medical records contained, in pertinent part, admissions by Appellant that he
had sexually assaulted his daughter. Appellant raised two objections to the
records: the probative value of the records were outweighed by their prejudicial
effect and he had not waived physician-client confidentiality. The trial court
overruled those objections and admitted the documents.
Later, during its examination of Investigator F. Vargas, the State asked
Investigator Vargas to read from certain portions of the medical records. Appellant
did not raise any objections.
Witness Testimony
In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant argues the trial court abused its
discretion by allowing Investigator Vargas to testify to matters outside of her
2
expertise. Within his argument section, Appellant mentions a number of
complaints: the records contained hearsay; Vargas could not authenticate the
documents as business records; there is no explanation for why the doctor who
prepared the documents was not present to testify; and Vargas was not established
to be an expert witness in the field of psychiatry. The State asserts that none of
these issues have been preserved. We agree.
In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, the complaining party
must (1) raise a timely objection and (2) obtain a ruling from the trial court. TEX.
R. APP. P. 33.1(a); see also TEX. R. EVID. 103(a). Appellant did not raise any
objections to Investigator Vargas’s testimony. The only objections raised when the
exhibit in question was admitted was that the probative value of the records was
outweighed by their prejudicial effect and that he had not waived physician-client
confidentiality. Appellant does not assert these arguments on appeal. See Swain v.
State, 181 S.W.3d 359, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding issue raised on appeal
must comport with complaint raised at trial); TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (requiring
brief to contain clear and concise argument for contentions made with appropriate
citations to record and legal authority). Accordingly, we hold Appellant’s
complaints on appeal have not been preserved.
We overrule Appellant’s sole issue.
3
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Laura Carter Higley
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4