Vicente R. Rios v. State

Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed January 3, 2017
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-01153-CR
VICENTE R. RIOS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1424969-T
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Francis
Vicente Rios appeals his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child less than
fourteen years of age. Appellant brings two issues contending the trial court abused its discretion
in admitting extraneous offense evidence and the judgment should be reformed to reflect the
correct prosecuting attorneys. We modify the judgment to correct the attorneys’ names and
affirm the judgment as modified.
Appellant was indicted for continuous sexual abuse of his biological daughter, B.R.
According to B.R., appellant began sexually abusing her when she was twelve years old. The
abuse progressed to the point that he forced B.R. to have sex with him multiple times a week.
B.R. did not tell her mother about the abuse because she was afraid of appellant.
When B.R. began to exhibit symptoms of trauma, her mother took her to a clinic where
she met with a social worker, Amnita Sandoval. B.R. revealed the abuse to Sandoval who
reported it immediately to Child Protective Services. The clinic then informed the police.
Appellant was arrested later that evening. During a taped interview, appellant admitted to having
sexual intercourse with B.R. stating that he was “teaching” her about sex.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. After hearing the evidence, a
jury convicted him and sentenced him to fifty years in prison. Appellant brings this appeal
challenging the conviction.
In his first issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting extraneous offense
evidence introduced by the State. Specifically, appellant complains his wife was allowed to
testify there was violence in their marriage and that he hurt her on occasions. Appellant argues
this evidence was not offered for a permissible purpose under the Texas Rules of Evidence.
Although appellant objected to his wife’s testimony, Sandoval later testified at trial
without objection that B.R. told her appellant slapped her mother in front of another family
member and was arrested. In addition, B.R. testified without objection that she was afraid to tell
her mother appellant was sexually abusing her because “a lot of times [appellant] would hit us
hard, like, leave us bruises and marks. I was afraid he would do something to my family.”
It is well settled that any error in the admission of evidence is cured where the same
evidence is later admitted during trial without objection. See Hudson v. State, 675 S.W.2d 507,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Defense counsel must object every time allegedly inadmissible evidence is offered. Hudson 675
S.W.2d at 511; Ethington, 819 S.W.2d at 858. Because appellant objected only the first time the
alleged extraneous offense evidence was offered and failed to either object to later testimony on
the same subject matter, request a running objection, or ask for a hearing on the matter outside
–2–
the presence of the jury, we conclude appellant did not preserve error on this issue. See
Ethington, 819 S.W.2d at 859–60. We resolve appellant’s first issue against him.
In his second issue, appellant contends the judgment should be modified to correct the
name of the State’s counsel. The judgment states the attorney representing the State at trial was
Jason Fine. The record, however, shows the State was represented by Kelly Benavides and
Reynie Tinajero. The State agrees the judgment should be modified to reflect the correct
attorneys. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the name Jason Fine and
to add Kelly Benavides and Reynie Tinajero as attorneys for the State. See TEX. R. APP. P.
43.2(b); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).
As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1
151153F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
VICENTE R. RIOS, Appellant On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-15-01153-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F-1424969-T.
Opinion delivered by Justice Francis.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Fillmore and Stoddart participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows: The name Jason Fine is to be deleted as Attorney for State and the names Kelly
Benavides and Reynie Tinajero are to be added as Attorneys for State.
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered January 3, 2017.
–4–