Lenar Alexander Corales v. State ( 2015 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00063-CR
LENAR ALEXANDER CORALES APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1324785D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
Appellant Lenar Alexander Corales appeals his conviction for attempted
capital murder and his sentence of sixty years’ confinement. We affirm.
Background Facts
On April 28, 2013, Alicia King and her boyfriend, Victor Perez, went to
King’s father’s house to celebrate his birthday. In the early evening, King; Perez;
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
King’s sister, Jennifer; and Jennifer’s boyfriend, Stephen Herrera, were returning
to the house from moving some furniture and saw Appellant driving down the
street away from King’s father’s house.
Around 9 p.m. that night, Perez was leaving the house. King walked him
to his car, and Perez put his son in the passenger seat. Two of King’s sisters,
who were also standing in the front yard at the time, saw Appellant walk across
the lawn to where King and Perez were standing.
Appellant shot King in the chest. He then shot Perez once in the back, and
as Perez turned around and put his body in front of his son, Appellant shot Perez
once in the head. Appellant then turned back to King. She put her arm up to
protect her face, and Appellant shot her again. The bullet went through her arm
and into her forehead, shattering the front of her skull. Upon observing Appellant
approach King the second time, one of King’s sisters, Cari, moved behind a car
and called 911. Appellant then fled.
Officer William Callaway encountered Appellant walking down the street.
Callaway testified that Appellant was “[n]ervous, sweaty,” and evasive in
answering questions. Based on information provided by the witnesses to the
shooting, Callaway identified Appellant as the suspect from a tattoo on his
stomach. Police detained Appellant while two witnesses were brought to identify
him. Both Herrera and Cari positively identified Appellant and noted that he was
no longer wearing the sweatshirt he had on earlier. King’s two sisters and
Herrera also later identified Appellant from a photo lineup as the shooter.
2
Police found Appellant’s car about a block away from the house. Police
also found a gray hoodie near where they had arrested Appellant. King testified
that Appellant wore a gray Nike hoodie “[a]lmost all the time.” She testified that
the sweatshirt depicted in one of the State’s photographs appeared to be the one
that Appellant wore that night. Both of King’s sisters also testified that Appellant
had been wearing a dark or gray hoodie.
Police found a revolver in the front yard of a house a few houses down the
street from the shooting. A bullet recovered from Perez was identified as having
been fired from that gun. Gun residue was found on Appellant’s right hand.
Appellant eventually gave a videotaped confession to the shootings.
Both King and Perez survived the shootings. At trial, they both
affirmatively identified Appellant as the man who had shot them. The State
admitted into evidence, without objection, three photographs of the gray
sweatshirt depicting the location it was found and one photograph of the
sweatshirt taken at the police lab. It also offered the actual sweatshirt into
evidence. Appellant objected that it was not relevant. The trial court overruled
the objection, and the sweatshirt was admitted.
A jury found Appellant guilty of attempted capital murder and assessed
punishment at sixty years’ confinement. The trial court sentenced Appellant
accordingly. Appellant then filed this appeal.
3
Discussion
In one point of error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by admitting
the gray hooded sweatshirt into evidence because the exhibit was hearsay, not
relevant, and any probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of
causing unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and misleading the jury. An
appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to admit evidence for an abuse of
discretion. Sauceda v. State, 129 S.W.3d 116, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). A
trial court abuses its discretion in admitting evidence if that decision falls outside
the wide zone of reasonable disagreement. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d
372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (op. on reh’g).
An objection preserves only the specific ground cited. Tex. R. App. P.
33.1(a)(1)(A); Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (op.
on reh’g), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1070 (1999); Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35,
54 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 827 (1997). At trial, Appellant
only objected to the admission of the sweatshirt on relevancy grounds. Thus,
any other objection that Appellant presents on appeal has been forfeited. See
Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 687, 691–92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“A complaint will
not be preserved if the legal basis of the complaint raised on appeal varies from
the complaint made at trial.”). Appellant did not object under Rule 403 and did
not assert the probative value of the exhibit was substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury; nor did
he object that the exhibit was hearsay. See Tex. R. Evid. 403, 801, 802.
4
Therefore, Appellant failed to preserve these issues for appellate review.
See Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
Relevant evidence is that which has any tendency to make the existence
of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or
less probable. See Tex. R. Evid. 401, 403; Hawkins v. State, 871 S.W.2d 539,
541 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, no pet.) (citing Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at
387).
All of the witnesses to the shooting testified that the shooter had been
wearing a dark or gray hooded sweatshirt. When police found Appellant, he was
wearing a t-shirt and was no longer wearing the hooded sweatshirt that the
witnesses described. Police found a gray hooded sweatshirt near where they
found Appellant. King identified the sweatshirt as appearing to be the one that
Appellant was wearing when he shot her. The sweatshirt therefore makes
Appellant’s identity as the shooter more likely and is thus relevant. Accordingly,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling the relevancy objection
and admitting the sweatshirt.
Further, Appellant did not object at trial to the admission of the four
photographs of the sweatshirt. Nor does Appellant now complain of the
admission of the photographs of the same sweatshirt. See Estrada v. State,
313 S.W.3d 274, 302 n.29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Leday v. State,
983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)) (stating that erroneous admission
of evidence will not require reversal when other such evidence was received
5
without objection), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 905 (2011). We therefore overrule
Appellant’s point.
Conclusion
Having overruled Appellant’s point of error, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
/s/ Lee Gabriel
LEE GABRIEL
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: April 23, 2015
6