Ramsis R. Maddison v. State ( 2005 )

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-03-00230-CR

Ramsis R. Maddison,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

From the 194th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court # F02-43288

MEMORANDUM Opinion

Ramsis R. Maddison was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen.  Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(B)(iii) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).[1]  Maddison pled guilty, and the judge assessed punishment at forty years in prison. Maddison appeals in two issues: (1) error in admitting the video taped confession without the prosecutors’ having provided the tape to the defense twenty days prior to the plea hearing; and (2) error in conducting a portion of the trial without the presence of the defendant.  We will overrule both issues and affirm the judgment.

ISSUE ONE: VIDEOTAPED CONFESSION

Maddison argues that the State should have provided him with the videotape at least twenty days prior to the plea hearing and sentencing hearing.  The State argues that this issue is not preserved for argument on appeal.

The following dialogue occurred at the sentencing hearing:

MR. CORRIGAN [for the State]: To begin with, Judge, we’ll offer State’s Exhibit Number 1, the videotape of the confession of the defendant, which I showed to counsel yesterday.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. PHILLIPS [defense counsel]: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: State’s Exhibit 1 is admitted into evidence.  How long does this take?

Therefore, it is clear from the record that defense counsel did not object to the admission of the videotaped confession.

Once evidence is admitted without objection, such evidence enjoys a status equal to that of all other admissible evidence.  Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 278-79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), overruled on other grounds by Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Accordingly, we find that Maddison did not preserve a complaint relating to failing to provide the videotape to him twenty days in advance.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Marin, 851 S.W.2d at 278-79.  We overrule issue one.

ISSUE TWO: RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION

Maddison argues that the trial court’s viewing of his videotaped confession alone in chambers violated his right to be present during his trial (right of confrontation).  The State also argues that this issue is not preserved for argument on appeal.

The dialogue at the sentencing hearing continued:

THE COURT: State’s Exhibit 1 is admitted into evidence.  How long does this take?

MR. CORRIGAN [for the State]: About 35 to 40 minutes.

THE COURT: I’m not going to watch it in here.

MR. CORRIGAN: Do you just want to watch it in chambers?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. CORRIGAN: I will take it back.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. CORRIGAN: Yes, Judge.  So do all the witnesses, and you’ll watch this at a later time?

THE COURT: Right?

MR. CORRIGAN: Okay.  Fair enough.

THE COURT: Before I make my ruling.

MR. CORRIGAN: We’ll call Maria Chacon.

THE COURT: Thank you.

. . .

THE COURT: All right.  I need to review the videotape, and I have a meeting that I must attend at noon.  I’ll be back and have reviewed the videotape by 1:30, and I’ll make my decision at that time.

MR. PHILLIPS [defense counsel]: Thank you.

(Court in recess).

Therefore, it is clear from the record that defense counsel did not object to the judges’ viewing of the videotaped confession in his chambers.

A defendant waives an alleged violation of his right to confrontation by failing to object at trial.  Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).  Accordingly, we find that Maddison did not preserve his complaint regarding a violation of his right to confrontation.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Briggs, 789 S.W.2d at 924.  We overrule issue two.

CONCLUSION

Having overruled Maddison’s issues, we affirm the judgment. 

BILL VANCE

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed February 2, 2005

Do not publish

[CRPM]

---

    [1]       Appellant was charged with another offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of fourteen (trial cause number F02-43228, our cause number 10-03-00229-CR).  The trial court heard both at the same time.