Oczaveone Jackson v. State ( 2015 )

AFFIRMED, and Opinion Filed June 25, 2015.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00985-CR
OCZAVEONE JACKSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1260601-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Francis
Oczaveone Jackson appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.
After the jury found him guilty of the charged offense, the trial court assessed punishment at life
in prison. In a single point of error, Jackson contends the trial court abused its discretion by
admitting certain evidence during punishment. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
On September 22, 2012, appellant robbed and shot the complainant, James Boyd, at a
Red Roof Inn in Dallas. Boyd identified appellant in court as the man who robbed and shot him.
The two women who were with appellant that night each testified he robbed and shot Boyd. In
addition, the State offered appellant’s video-taped statement in which he admitted he robbed and
shot Boyd. After hearing this and other evidence, the jury found appellant guilty.
During punishment, the State introduced photographs of appellant’s tattoos. Detective
Greg Cerasco of the Dallas Police Department identified fourteen photographs of appellant and
noted details of the tattoos that indicated appellant was a member of a gang. Cerasco also said
several of appellant’s tattoos were consistent with tattoos belonging to members of the Park Row
Posse, a subset of the Crips gang located in South Dallas. When Cerasco began detailing the
history of an alliance between Crips and Bloods beginning in 2008, appellant’s trial counsel
stated, “[w]e object to this testimony in that it’s not relevant to 2014.” Although the trial court
overruled the objection, appellant was granted a running objection to the testimony on the
history. Cerasco went on to testify that appellant’s tattoos were also consistent with membership
in this hybrid gang of Crips and Bloods, known as the “Get Money Boys.”
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends the trial court’s admission of gang-related
evidence was reversible error because it was not relevant and, therefore, was improperly
considered by the trial court.
To preserve a complaint for appellate review, the record must show the complaint was
made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion stating “the grounds for the
ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make
the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the
context.” TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1). When an appellant does not timely object to the admission
of evidence, he fails to preserve the issue for review. Mays v. State, 318 S.W.3d 368, 391−92
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010). And the complaint raised on appeal must comport with the objection
lodged at trial. See Guevara v. State, 97 S.W.3d 579, 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (appellant
failed to preserve any error regarding the admission of evidence because objection at trial did not
comport with complaint raised on appeal).
After reviewing appellant’s sole issue, we conclude he waived the issue because he did
not make a timely and specific objection to the admission of the gang-related evidence and, when
he did object, his complaint below differs from the one raised in his appellate brief. See TEX. R.
–2–
APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Instead of
objecting to the State’s introduction or use of the gang-related evidence, appellant merely
objected to the relevancy of Cerasco’s contextual testimony describing an alliance formed in
2008 between the Crips and Bloods for the purposes of making money. Appellant did not object
when the State sought to admit photos of appellant’s tattoos or when Cerasco described the gang-
related significance of appellant’s tattoos or the types of criminal activities consistent with those
engaged in by gang members or associates. Appellant’s relevancy objection addressed only the
testimony about the 2008 alliance between two gangs; thus, the objection was insufficient to
preserve error, if any. Under these circumstances, we conclude appellant has waived this issue.
Furthermore, under article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a trial court
has broad discretion to admit evidence the court deems relevant to sentencing, including
evidence of prior crimes, reputation, character, or the circumstance of the offense. TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.07 § 3(a)(1) (West Supp. 2014); see Hayden v. State, 296 S.W.3d 549,
552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Evidence of membership in or affiliation with a gang would fall
under the type of “bad acts” relevant to sentencing, and article 37.07 allows the introduction of
such evidence to show the defendant’s character. See Beasley v. State, 902 S.W.2d 452, 456
(Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Finally, evidence was presented to the trial court of appellant’s
extensive criminal history, beginning with burglary of a habitation at twelve years of age and
including a carjacking appellant committed immediately after robbing and shooting Boyd.
Under these circumstances, we fail to see how appellant could have been harmed by the
complained of evidence. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b). We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
–3–
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
140985F.U05
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
OCZAVEONE JACKSON, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-14-00985-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F12-60601-X.
Opinion delivered by Justice Francis,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 25th day of June, 2015.
–5–