Christopher Chairez v. the State of Texas

Modified and Affirmed and Opinion Filed December 6, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Nos. 05-22-00967-CR, 05-22-00968-CR, 05-22-00969-CR, 05-22-00970-CR,
05-22-00971-CR, 05-22-00972-CR, 05-22-00973-CR, 05-22-00974-CR,
05-22-00975-CR, 05-22-00976-CR, 05-22-00977-CR, 05-22-00978-CR,
05-22-00979-CR, 05-22-00980-CR, 05-22-00981-CR, 05-22-00982-CR,
05-22-00983-CR, 05-22-00984-CR, 05-22-00985-CR, 05-22-00986-CR
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 366-81666-2022, 366-81667-2022,
366-81668-2022, 366-81669-2022, 366-81670-2022, 366-81671-2022,
366-81672-2022, 366-81673-2022, 366-81674-2022, 366-81675-2022,
366-81676-2022, 366-81677-2022, 366-81678-2022, 366-81679-2022,
366-81680-2022, 366-81681-2022, 366-81682-2022, 366-81683-2022,
366-81684-2022, 366-81685-2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Breedlove
Opinion by Justice Breedlove
In a single consolidated trial, a jury found appellant Christopher Chairez
guilty of the allegations in twenty indictments. Eight of the indictments alleged
possession of child pornography and twelve alleged possession with intent to
promote child pornography. After the jury assessed sentences in each case ranging
from ten years’ probation to eight years’ imprisonment, the trial court ruled that six
of the sentences would run consecutively, and the remaining sentences would run
concurrently.1 The trial court then rendered judgments in the twenty cases. In six
issues, appellant challenges the judgments. He contends he was denied a speedy trial
and argues that the trial court erred by overruling his objections to the admission of
evidence and by denying his motions to quash the indictments. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment in each appeal.
BACKGROUND
In July 2019, Investigator Lee McMillian of the Collin County Sheriff’s
Office began investigating online sharing of child pornography. This led him to
acquire child pornography images from appellant’s computer by means of a peer-to-
peer program. On December 17 and 18, 2019, McMillian downloaded and
personally viewed a number of child pornography images and videos from an IP
address that was associated with appellant. His investigation led to acquiring a
search warrant for appellant’s residence and electronic devices.
1
In our review of the record, we note that the judgment in Cause No. 366-81685-2022 (this Court’s
No. 05-22-00986-CR) provides that “This sentence shall run: Concurrently,” in conflict with the trial
court’s oral ruling on the record at the conclusion of the punishment phase that the sentence was “to be
served consecutively.” When there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the
written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Shuler v. State, 650 S.W.3d 683, 686 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2022, no pet.) (citing Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)). The remedy is
to reform the judgment. Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 287, 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). This Court has
the power to modify a judgment to speak the truth when we have the necessary information to do so. TEX.
R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813
S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (en banc). Accordingly, we reform the judgment in
Cause No. 366-81685-2022 to reflect that the sentence is to run consecutively.
–2–
On January 9, 2020, officers executed the search warrant. While still at
appellant’s residence, McMillian performed triage forensics on the electronic
devices to determine if he had probable cause to make an arrest. He looked at the
content of what had been seized and found images of child pornography. Appellant
was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography and possession of
child pornography with the intent to promote.
On the same date, a Collin County magistrate set bonds on each charge, set
bond conditions, and entered an emergency protective order. Appellant was released
upon posting the bonds. Appellant filed five motions to amend his bond conditions,
resulting in the bond conditions being amended five times in 2020. The amendments
included permitting appellant’s use of a computer for work, permitting travel to
counties contiguous to Collin County, allowing contact with his son by electronic
means, vacating the emergency protective order, and later allowing supervised
contact with his son for two hours a week. The bond conditions remained in effect
until Appellant’s conviction on these charges. There were no allegations that
Appellant violated his bond conditions.
The grand jury issued 20 indictments on May 3, 2022. Twelve of the
indictments alleged Appellant possessed child pornography with the intent to
promote it, on or about December 17, 2019.2 Eight of the indictments alleged
2
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(g).
–3–
possession of child pornography on or about January 9, 2020.3 All of the indictments
are the result of evidence acquired in McMillian’s investigation under the search
warrant that was executed on January 9, 2020. The indictments generally allege that
appellant possessed, or possessed with intent to promote, visual material that
depicted a child under 18 years of age engaging in sexual conduct. They do not
identify the specific visual material on which each indictment is based.
Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the indictments for violation of his speedy
trial rights in all twenty cases. The trial court heard the motions and denied them on
July 8, 2022. The cases were consolidated and proceeded to a jury trial on August
22, 2022.
McMillian was the only witness called by the State at trial. He testified about
his investigation and his discovery of more than 15,000 images of child pornography
on appellant’s electronic devices. The jury found appellant guilty on each
indictment, and the trial proceeded to the punishment phase.
McMillian again testified about the number, description, and categories of
images seized, and the images were admitted into evidence for all purposes.
Appellant called several witnesses, including officer Lawrence Denison of the Collin
County Sheriff’s office who testified about the Collin County GPS monitoring
program and appellant’s compliance with the program since his arrest. Haley
3
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(d).
–4–
Barnhart, an investigator with the Department of Family and Protective Services,
testified that she interviewed appellant’s son when appellant was arrested. She
explained that appellant’s son gave no indication that he had been abused or exposed
to pornography. Appellant’s aunt Angelina Chairez testified that appellant was
sexually abused as an infant. Michelle Stewart, a Collin County adult probation
officer, testified about conditions of community supervision for persons on
probation for child pornography offenses. Kris White, appellant’s therapist, testified
that appellant had been receiving therapy since February 2020 for sexual issues and
for anxiety and depression relating to the charges against him. White testified that
appellant was a dedicated father but that the charges had a negative effect on
appellant’s son and their relationship. White also opined that appellant was dedicated
to his therapy, wore his GPS monitor, and was a good candidate for probation.
After hearing all of the evidence, the jury assessed sentences ranging from
three to eight years on eighteen of the cases, and ordered probation on the remaining
two. The trial court ordered that twelve of the sentences (ranging from three to six
years each) and the two probation sentences would run concurrently. The trial court
ordered that the remaining six sentences ranging from three to eight years (for a total
of 33 years) would run consecutively. This appeal followed.
In six issues, appellant contends the trial court erred by (1) overruling his
motions to dismiss the indictments due to violations of his federal and state speedy
trial rights, (2) denying his motion to quash and dismiss the indictments because they
–5–
did not give him adequate notice of the charges against him, (3) denying his motion
to quash and dismiss the indictments “because they were not fully the product of the
grand jury,” (4) denying his motion to quash the indictments because “the
allegations in the indictments resulted in violations of appellant’s double jeopardy
rights,” (5) admitting evidence of extraneous offenses, wrongs, and acts, and
(6) admitting unreliable and irrelevant opinion testimony by an unqualified witness.
1. Speedy Trial (Issue 1)
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the accused in a
criminal prosecution the right to a speedy trial. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI. The
right to a speedy trial attaches once a person is either arrested or charged. Cantu v.
State, 253 S.W.3d 273, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Courts determine a speedy trial
claim on an ad hoc basis by analyzing and weighing four factors: (1) the length of
the delay, (2) the State’s reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s assertion of his
right to a speedy trial, and (4) prejudice to the defendant because of the length of
delay. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530–32 (1972); Cantu, 253 S.W.3d at 280.
The State bears the burden to justify the length of the delay, while the
defendant bears the burden to prove he asserted his right and has been prejudiced.
Cantu, 253 S.W.3d at 280. The defendant’s burden on the latter two factors “varies
inversely” with the State’s degree of culpability for the delay. Id. When conducting
the balancing test, no single factor is determinative, and the conduct of both the
–6–
prosecutor and the defendant must be weighed. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 533; State
v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818, 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
To trigger a speedy trial analysis, the defendant must make an initial showing
that “the interval between accusation and trial has crossed the threshold dividing
ordinary from ‘presumptively prejudicial’ delay.” Gonzales v. State, 435 S.W.3d
801, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (quoting Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647,
651–52 (1992)). If the defendant makes a threshold showing of presumptive
prejudice, the court must consider and weigh each of the remaining Barker factors.
Id. (citing Munoz, 991 S.W.2d at 821–22).
If the right to a speedy trial has been violated, the remedy is dismissal of the
charging instrument with prejudice. Cantu, 253 S.W.3d at 281. Because this is an
extreme remedy, “courts must apply the Barker balancing test with common sense
and sensitivity to ensure that charges are dismissed only when the evidence shows
that a defendant’s actual and asserted interest in a speedy trial has been infringed.”
Id. “The constitutional right is that of a speedy trial, not dismissal of the charges.”
Id.We apply a bifurcated standard of review in a speedy trial analysis: we employ
an abuse of discretion standard for the factual components and a de novo standard
for the legal components. State v. Lopez, 631 S.W.3d 107, 113–14 (Tex. Crim. App.
2021). Thus, we give almost total deference to the trial court’s historical findings of
fact that are supported by the record. Gonzales, 435 S.W.3d at 808–09. The
–7–
balancing test of the Barker factors is a purely legal question that we review de novo.
Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756, 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
The Length of the Delay
At the hearing, the trial court found that appellant had “already won on the
issue of the delay” and that a full Barker analysis should be undertaken. The State
does not contest that the length of time from appellant’s arrest to his motion to
dismiss—two years and four months—was sufficient to trigger a full Barker
analysis. Accordingly, the State bears the burden to justify the delay, while appellant
bears the burden to show his diligent assertion of the speedy trial right and to show
prejudice. Cantu, 253 S.W.3d at 280. And because the State concedes that the delay
was presumptively prejudicial, the first factor weighs in favor of appellant. See
Jackson v. State, No. 05-14-00283-CR, 2015 WL 1540800, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Dallas April 1, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op. not designated for publication).
Reason for the delay
With respect to the second Barker factor, the State bears the initial burden of
justifying the delay. Cantu, 253 S.W.3d at 280. We do not attribute equal weight to
all reasons for delay: an intentional delay for tactical reasons is weighed heavily
against the State; a neutral reason, such as overcrowded courts or negligence, is
weighed less heavily against the State; and a valid reason is not weighed against the
State at all. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d at 822. The State divides the time between
appellant’s arrest and the filing of his speedy trial motion into distinct periods.
–8–
1/9/20 to 8/17/20. Appellant was arrested on January 9, 2020. McMillian
testified that once he acquired appellant’s twelve devices, the first step was to image
them, a process that took about ten days. The first delay occurred in the subsequent
process of “ingesting” the image drives into a software platform called Magnet
Axiom. McMillian testified that he began this process on January 15, 2020, but
realized in August 2020 that the forensics “failed in the process.” He testified that
he could work on the ingesting process only in his office, and for some period of
time he did not have access to his office due to the COVID pandemic. He did not
specify the dates during which he lacked access, however. He explained:
Q. Okay. Throughout this case being started up until the time it was
officially filed with my office, is it fair to say that you lost some time
due to COVID and not being able to be in your forensic laboratory?
A. I lost months due to not being able to be at the lab. I can’t—we were
sent home and we could work remotely. Child pornography is not
something that you can work on remotely, so I lost months due to that.
Although appellant argued that the extraction process could have been done
faster, offering testimony from Daniel Allen FitzGerald, an IT consultant, McMillian
testified that he was not aware of any method that would have extracted the images
in any shorter period of time. FitzGerald offered his own opinion that the process
should have taken “less than 30 days” if McMillian had processed and released
information from one server at a time. FitzGerald admitted, however, that he had not
had experience with investigations by police agencies and he was not familiar with
the procedures or the resources at the Collin County Sheriff’s Office. He responded
–9–
to a question from the trial court that he did not have any published works or
procedures “indicat[ing] that this is the method that all forensic . . . investigators
should use,” but rather was testifying to his “own personal opinion.”
Appellant’s counsel also questioned McMillian why he could not have
analyzed some subset of the information and submitted that to the District Attorney’s
office instead of completing the entire process first. Nothing in the Barker v. Wingo
analysis necessitates this piecemeal approach, however, and McMillian explained
that it was “not a forensically sound method.” He explained that as part of an
investigation he looks for “all types of evidence, including exculpatory evidence,”
and could not do so in a piecemeal process.
We conclude the State offered evidence of valid reasons to justify this period
of time. “A valid reason for the delay should not be weighed against the government
at all.” Munoz, 992 S.W.2d at 822.
8/17/20-4/28/21. McMillian restarted the process in August 2020, and
completed the forensics on April 28, 2021. He testified that he then had “a set that
[was] forensically sound that I could present.” Again, although FitzGerald testified
that the process could have been completed more quickly, there was no evidence that
the State was required to use his method or could have done so given its procedures,
its resources, and other constraints. The fact that the process had to be restarted was
unfortunate but there is no evidence of any deliberate attempt to delay by the State.
Instead, the State argues that the time period was reasonable given the “sheer volume
–10–
of data” to be processed. “[W]e must presume the trial court resolved any disputed
fact issues in the State’s favor, and we defer to the implied findings that the record
supports.” Jackson, 2015 WL 1540800, at *3.
We conclude that the State’s reasons for this delay were “more neutral,” and
accordingly weigh against the State “less heavily” if at all. See Munoz, 992 S.W.2d
at 822 (A “more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be
weigh[t]ed [against the government] less heavily.”) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at
531).
4/28/21-5/12/21. McMillian testified that the next step in the process was to
“tag” or quantify the amount of potential evidence in the extractions. He explained,
however, that “there was some fear that . . . due to the age of the suspect’s own son,
we thought there might be images of his son on there, so we had to go through every
single image.” He testified that this process took “a very significant amount of time,”
although he conceded that no images of appellant’s child were found. McMillian
testified that “the final collections, timewise, all of that would have been on 5-12-
21.” We conclude that this delay was reasonable and should not weigh against the
State. See Munoz, 992 S.W.2d at 822.
5/13/21-9/13/21. There is no evidence about this period, and accordingly
nothing in the record to show that there was any deliberate attempt by the State to
delay the trial. “In the absence of an assigned reason for the delay, a court may
presume neither a deliberate attempt on the part of the State to prejudice the defense
–11–
nor a valid reason for the delay.” Balderas, 517 S.W.3d at 768 (internal quotation
omitted).
9/13/21-12/17/21. McMillian testified that the case “was in a stack of other
cases that were . . . headed over to the DA’s office to be filed,” but for a reason
unknown to McMillian, the District Attorney’s office did not receive it. McMillian
testified that he discovered the case had not been filed when he conducted an audit
of his own on in December 2021. There is no evidence of intentional delay, however.
“A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighed
against the government less heavily.” Munoz, 991 S.W.2d at 822 (internal quotation
omitted). This delay weighs slightly against the State.
12/17/21-1/4/22. Although McMillian discovered on December 17, 2021 that
the District Attorney’s office had not received the case, he went on vacation for two
weeks before refiling it. The State concedes that McMillian was negligent by not
refiling immediately, but argues that negligence weighs only slightly against the
State. As we have explained, negligence weighs less heavily against the State than
deliberate delay. Id. This delay weighs slightly against the State.
1/4/22-5/3/22. The case was filed with the District Attorney’s office, prepared,
and presented to the grand jury. See Shaw v. State, 117 S.W.3d 883, 889–90 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2003) (the State is “entitled to a reasonable period in which to prepare
its case”). The grand jury issued 20 indictments on May 3, 2022. There is no
evidence that this period of time was unreasonable or the result of any deliberate
–12–
attempt by the State to delay. Accordingly, this period is neutral. See Munoz, 992
S.W.2d at 822.
Conclusion. There is no evidence that the State deliberately delayed
appellant’s trial for strategic gain. Instead, the delay weighs slightly against the State
in only two or three of the seven time periods we have discussed. Although the time
period between appellant’s arrest and his indictment was lengthy, most of it was
spent in preparing the large quantity of data, first for the District Attorney and then
for the grand jury. Problems with the first attempt to prepare and analyze the data
from appellant’s devices were exacerbated by the pandemic when McMillian had no
access to his office. Accordingly, although the delay was long, we conclude under
these unusual circumstances that the second Barker factor weighs slightly against
the State. See Jackson, 2015 WL 1540800, at *3.
Appellant’s assertion of his right
The third Barker factor examines the defendant’s assertion of his right to a
speedy trial. Appellant’s assertion of his right should receive “strong evidentiary
weight” in our determination of whether he has been deprived of that right. See
Balderas, 517 S.W.3d at 771. Although appellant’s motion referenced his right to a
speedy trial, he sought dismissal of the charges against him, not a speedy trial.
“Filing for a dismissal instead of a speedy trial will generally weaken a speedy-trial
claim because it shows a desire to have no trial instead of a speedy one.” Cantu, 253
S.W.3d at 283. If a defendant does not timely demand a speedy trial, we must assume
–13–
that he did not really want one. Balderas, 517 S.W.3d at 771. And the longer the
delay before trial, the more likely it would be that a defendant wanting a speedy trial
would request it. Id.Appellant did not raise the issue of a speedy trial until two years and four
months after his arrest. He filed his first speedy trial motion within three weeks of
the date indictments were issued, and an amended motion two months later that was
heard shortly after its filing. In both motions, however, appellant sought dismissal
of the charges, not a speedy trial.
The trial court noted that “the defendant has to make some showing of
asserting” his speedy trial right before indictment by taking steps such as calling the
District Attorney’s office to inquire about the status of the case or hiring an attorney
to make inquiries. Although appellant successfully challenged some of the
conditions of his parole bond in five motions that he filed between January 16, 2020
and December 18, 2020, these motions did not include a request for a speedy trial.
Appellant argues, however, that he asserted his speedy trial rights “promptly after
he was indicted.”
But “invocation of the speedy trial provision . . . need not await indictment,
information, or other formal charge.” Cantu, 253 S.W.3d at 283–84 (quoting
Dillingham v. United States, 423 U.S. 64, 65 (1975) (per curiam)). In Jackson, we
explained,
–14–
An accused who has been arrested but not charged has a choice: (1) wait
until he is charged, file a motion requesting a speedy trial, and, if the
trial court does not grant this motion, then file a motion to dismiss
“because he has diligently sought what he is entitled to—a speedy
trial,” or (2) wait until he is charged and file a motion to dismiss “if he
can show that he diligently tried to move the case into court before
formal charges were filed.” Cantu, 253 S.W.3d at 284.
Jackson, 2015 WL 1540800, at *3. Appellant filed his initial “Motion to Dismiss for
Violation of Speedy Trial Rights” on May 27, 2022, less than a month after his
indictments but more than two years after his arrest. As in Jackson, “[t]he record
does not show any efforts by [appellant] to move the case into court during the time
between [his] arrest and [his] motion.” Id. at *4. Appellant’s “failure to diligently
and vigorously seek a rapid resolution is entitled to strong evidentiary weight.” Id.
(internal quotations omitted). “These facts suggest [appellant] did not really want a
speedy trial; [he] only wanted a dismissal.” Id. Appellant’s delay in attempting to
move his case into court weighs against him. Id.
Prejudice to appellant
The fourth and final Barker factor we consider is the prejudice caused to the
defendant as a result of the State’s delay. The defendant has the burden of showing
prejudice. Cantu, 253 S.W.3d at 280. We assess this factor in light of the three
interests the right to a speedy trial is intended to protect: (1) preventing oppressive
pretrial incarceration, (2) minimizing anxiety and concern of the accused, and
(3) limiting the possibility that the defense will be impaired. Hopper v. State, 520
S.W.3d 915, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
–15–
Appellant was able to post a bond and so was not incarcerated between his
arrest and his indictments, with the exception of about ten days when bonds were
being obtained. There were restrictions on travel and on where he could reside,
however, and he wore a GPS monitor for over two years at his own expense. His
access to his son was limited and supervised, and he could not visit his son’s school
or go to “any place that children congregate or are educated,” as he explained at the
hearing. He was prohibited from using computers, although this limitation was
amended almost immediately so that he could use them for work.
Appellant began seeing a therapist for the “dual purposes” of “address[ing]
the child pornography usage” and his “depression and the anxiety.” He also obtained
a diet plan from his doctor to address his “weight problem that was caused by
overeating due to anxiety.” He testified that the depression and anxiety have “gotten
better” but still affect him. Appellant testified that he lost the job he held at the time
of his initial arrest, but found “another job in IT” and was still employed there at the
time of the hearing on his motion to dismiss.
There was no evidence that appellant’s defense was in any way impaired by
the delay. Appellant does not contend that any evidence or witness was lost, and the
State’s only witness at trial was still employed by the State and had personally
conducted the investigation that led to appellant’s indictment. At the hearing on
appellant’s speedy trial motion, the court found that the delay “has not unduly
prejudiced the defendant, and that this defendant has not made a prima facie case as
–16–
it relates to the prejudice against him.” The court continued, “I don’t believe that the
evidence that was shown does rise to that level. The fact that he was charged would
have resulted in the same incidents or issues that he has as it relates to his relationship
with his child, and those issues.” The court also noted that appellant had not sought
removal of his leg monitor, and had sought and obtained amendment of his bond
conditions relating to contact with his child. The trial court also noted that “I don’t
find there was any other testimony or any other credible testimony of these
prejudicial factors, other than him saying that he has anxiety and trouble sleeping.”
In sum, appellant had no “oppressive pretrial incarceration” and no
impairment of his defense, see Hopper, 520 S.W.3d at 924, but he had significant
restrictions on his access to his son. As the trial court noted, however, “[t]he fact that
he was charged would have resulted in the same incidents or issues that he has as it
relates to his relationship with his child, and those issues,” and the restrictions were
lessened in several amendments to his bond conditions. Appellant’s anxiety and
concern arose both from his child pornography usage and from the conditions
required by his bond, and the court noted that there were no pending requests by
appellant to remove his leg monitor “or to lessen any of those factors that are
currently pending in this case.” The court noted it “would certainly entertain any of
those motions” if presented, and further noted that prior motions “were granted in
some respects as to his ability to see his child and be involved in his child’s life as it
relates to this particular charge and this offense.” But the court concluded, “I don’t
–17–
find there was any other testimony or any other credible testimony of these
prejudicial factors, other than him saying that he has anxiety and trouble sleeping.
There was no other evidence presented of that.” Moreover, “evidence of generalized
anxiety, though relevant, is not sufficient proof of prejudice under the Barker test,
especially when it is no greater anxiety or concern beyond the level normally
associated with a criminal charge or investigation.” Cantu, 253 S.W.3d at 286. We
conclude, as the trial court did, that this factor weighs against appellant. See
Conatser v. State, 645 S.W.3d 925, 931 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, no pet.) (where
appellant testified to “considerable stress and anxiety” from delay, but did not offer
evidence of significant prejudice, fourth Barker factor weighed “heavily against
him”).
Balancing the Factors
Noting the months of unexplained delay, we have concluded that the length
and reasons for the delay weigh against the State. Appellant’s failure to assert his
right to a speedy trial, however, weighs against him and in favor of the State. And
finally, the prejudice appellant identified was the result of the nature of the charges
rather than the length of the delay. We conclude that appellant has failed to carry his
burden to establish both that he adequately asserted his right and that the State’s
delay caused him prejudice. We conclude that the Barker factors weigh against
finding a speedy trial violation. See id. at 932. We overrule appellant’s first issue.
–18–
2. Indictments (Issues 2, 3, and 4)
Appellant’s complaints in his second, third, and fourth issues arise from his
contention that the 20 indictments do not “identify a particular item of visual material
so as to distinguish it from other items of visual material.” For example, he contends
that for indictments 668, 669, and 684,4 without a specific photograph identified,
[o]ne cannot determine whether the indictments allege three different
offenses or the same offense two times, or some combination thereof,
or whether the visual material includes only sexual intercourse, sexual
contact and the lewd exhibition of genitals, or includes that conduct and
other conduct. The term “sexual contact” is defined by § 43.01(4), but
can mean many, many different things, so use of that term does not give
Appellant adequate notice of what visual material he is alleged to have
possessed.
Appellant contends that because each indictment did not identify a specific visual
image, the indictments did not give him adequate notice of the charges against him
(Issue 2), were “not fully the product of the grand jury” (Issue 3) and “resulted in
violations of appellant’s double jeopardy rights” (Issue 4).
“The right to notice is set forth in both the United States and Texas
Constitutions.” State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (citing
U.S. CONST. amend. VI; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 10). “Thus, the charging instrument
must be specific enough to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against
him so that he may prepare a defense.” Id.; see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
arts. 21.02–.04, and 21.11 (setting out statutory requirements for indictments).
4
Appellant identifies the indictments by the last three digits in the trial court case number.
–19–
The sufficiency of an indictment is a question of law that we review de novo.
Hughitt v. State, 583 S.W.3d 623, 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019). “Generally, an
indictment that tracks the language of the applicable statute will satisfy
constitutional and statutory requirements.” Id. We “engage in a two-step analysis
when analyzing whether a charging instrument provides adequate notice.” State v.
Zuniga, 512 S.W.3d 902, 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). First, we identify the elements
of the offense. Id. Next, we consider whether the statutory language is sufficiently
descriptive of the charged offense. Id.The twenty indictments all allege violations of Texas Penal Code § 43.26,
“Possession or Promotion of Child Pornography.” Section 43.26(a) provides:
(a) A person commits an offense if:
(1) the person knowingly or intentionally possesses, or
knowingly or intentionally accesses with intent to view, visual
material that visually depicts a child younger than 18 years of
age at the time the image of the child was made who is engaging
in sexual conduct, including a child who engages in sexual
conduct as a victim of an offense under Section 20A.02(a)(5),
(6), (7), or (8); and
(2) the person knows that the material depicts the child as
described by Subdivision (1).
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(a). Eight of the indictments allege a violation of
subsection (d) of § 43.26, providing that an offense under subsection (a) is a felony
of the third degree. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(d).
–20–
Twelve of the indictments allege a violation of subsection (g) of § 43.26,
providing that an offense under subsection (e) is a felony of the second degree.
Section 43.26(e) provides:
(e) A person commits an offense if:
(1) the person knowingly or intentionally promotes or possesses
with intent to promote material described by Subsection (a)(1);
and
(2) the person knows that the material depicts the child as
described by Subsection (a)(1).
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(e).
Accordingly, all twenty indictments allege that appellant “intentionally and
knowingly possess[ed]” “visual material” that “visually depicted,” and which “the
defendant knew visually depicted,” a child who was younger than 18 years of age at
the time the image was made “engaging in sexual conduct.” The terms “sexual
conduct,” and “visual material” are specifically defined in penal code § 43.25(a)(2)
and § 43.26(b). The twelve indictments under subsection (g) added “with intent to
promote” to this allegation. “Promote” is specifically defined in penal code
§ 43.25(a)(5), “to procure, manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver,
transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, or
advertise or to offer or agree to do any of the above.”
The indictments differed, however, on the visual depictions alleged,
including:
 “actual sexual contact and actual lewd exhibition of the genitals”;
–21–
 “actual sadomasochistic abuse, and actual deviate sexual intercourse, and
actual sexual contact, and actual lewd exhibition of the genitals”;
 “actual sexual intercourse and actual sexual contact and actual lewd
exhibition of the genitals”;
 “actual sadomasochistic abuse and actual lewd exhibition of the genitals”;
 “actual deviate sexual intercourse”;
 “actual deviate sexual intercourse and actual sexual contact”;
 “actual deviate sexual intercourse and actual sadomasochistic abuse”;
 “actual lewd exhibition of the genitals”; and
 “actual deviate sexual intercourse and actual sexual contact and actual
lewd exhibition of the genitals.”
The State argues that each indictment was sufficient without identifying
specific photographs, relying on Taylor v. State, No. 03-19-00077-CR, 2021 WL
476657, at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 10, 2021, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not
designated for publication). In that case, the appellant complained “about the State’s
failure to identify in the indictment which specific images of child pornography that
it sought to prove at trial,” an issue he had also raised in the trial court by a motion
to quash the indictment. Id. at *4. The court rejected this argument, noting that the
indictment “tracked the statutory language for the offense of possession of child
pornography and identified the specific ‘sexual conduct’ for each count that the child
was alleged to have been engaging at the time of the image.” Id. at *5. The court
also explained that the State “need not allege facts that are merely evidentiary in
nature” in the indictment. Id. (internal quotation omitted).
–22–
Appellant distinguishes Taylor on the ground that he, unlike Taylor, requested
that the State “elect the specific image on which it was relying as proof for each
count.” See id. (observing that “when the State rested, appellant did not request that
the State elect the specific image on which it was relying as proof for each count”).
Appellant filed pretrial motions to quash or dismiss the indictments, or in the
alternative to require an election. At a pretrial hearing, the trial court denied
appellant’s request to make an election at the close of the case.
But at the same pretrial hearing, the trial court ordered the State to identify
which specific image related to each indictment and to identify which specific image
the State was likely to use for each indictment. The State did so. We conclude that
the indictments provided sufficient notice of the offenses charged. See Hughitt, 583
S.W.3d at 626; Zuniga, 512 S.W.3d at 907.
We also reject appellant’s argument that the indictments “were not fully the
product of the grand jury.” As this Court recently explained, “[a] defendant has a
constitutional right to have a grand jury pass upon the question of whether there is
probable cause to believe he committed a particular offense. The purpose of the
grand jury is to protect citizens from the State’s commencement of arbitrary or
unreasonable felony prosecutions. The grand jury does not, however, necessarily
need to pass on matters that are purely evidentiary.” Uribe v. State,
No. 05-18-00001-CR, 2019 WL 1292468, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 20, 2019,
pet. ref’d) (citations omitted) (mem. op. not designated for publication). The fact that
–23–
the grand jury did not identify specific visual material supporting its decision did not
affect the defendant’s substantial rights or render the indictments constitutionally
inadequate. See id. (no constitutional violation where the indictment was amended
to allege a different family violence conviction to raise the charged offense to the
level of a felony).
Finally, we reject appellant’s argument that the trial court erred by denying
his motion to quash the indictments because “the allegations in the indictments
resulted in violations of appellant’s double jeopardy rights.” Each item of child
pornography found in appellant’s possession constitutes a separate offense for which
he may be prosecuted. Witt v. State, 237 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007,
pet. ref’d) (citing Vineyard v. State, 958 S.W.2d 834, 838 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)).
The State introduced evidence showing twenty separate images or videos depicting
children engaging in the sexual conduct alleged. We conclude there was no violation
of appellant’s double jeopardy rights. See Vineyard, 958 S.W.2d at 838 (possession
of each item of child pornography is an “allowable unit of prosecution” for purposes
of double jeopardy analysis).
For these reasons, we conclude that the indictments gave appellant adequate
notice of the charges against him and did not violate his double jeopardy rights. We
overrule appellant’s second, third, and fourth issues.
–24–
3. Admission of evidence (Issues 5 and 6)
Admission of extraneous offenses
In his fifth issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by
overruling his objections to evidence that he possessed more than 15,000 items of
child pornography. McMillian testified that he found the files for which appellant
was charged among a larger collection of files, and the twenty files were a
representative subset of what he found. He also testified that he stopped keeping
track of quantity “at just over 15,000” images in the course of explaining how long
it took to perform the forensic extractions of the material. During McMillian’s
testimony, the State also offered Exhibit 27, a USB drive described by McMillian as
“the portable case of the downloads” and Exhibit 28, an external hard drive
McMillian described as “the portable case of the forensics,” all obtained “from the
extractions of [appellant’s] actual devices.” These exhibits were offered and
admitted “for record purposes only” during the first phase of the trial and for all
purposes during the punishment phase.
We review a trial court’s ruling admitting extraneous offense evidence for an
abuse of discretion. Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457, 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
The trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision lies outside the zone
of reasonable disagreement. Id.Appellant contends the evidence was inadmissible under rules of evidence
403 and 404. Rule 403 provides that the trial court may exclude relevant evidence if
–25–
its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice,
confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence. TEX. R. EVID. 403. We evaluate the following four factors
when conducting a rule 403 analysis: (1) the probative value of the evidence; (2) the
potential to impress the jury in some irrational, yet indelible way; (3) the time needed
to develop the evidence; and (4) the proponent’s need for the evidence. State v.
Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 440 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Montgomery v. State, 810
S.W.2d 372, 389–90 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (op. on reh’g). In doing so, we balance
the inherent probative force of the evidence with the proponent’s need for the
evidence against any tendency of the evidence to suggest a decision on an improper
basis, to confuse or distract the jury from the main issues of the case, or to be given
undue weight, and against the likelihood that the presentation of the evidence will
consume an inordinate amount of time or merely repeat evidence already admitted.
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641–42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). This
balancing test “is always slanted toward admission, not exclusion, of otherwise
relevant evidence.” De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex. Crim. App.
2009).
Rule of evidence 404(b) provides that extraneous-offense evidence “is not
admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular
occasion the person acted in accordance with the character,” but may be admissible
for other purposes “such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
–26–
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” TEX. R. EVID. 404(b)
(1), (2).
We first review the trial court’s rulings under rule 403. Rule 403 “envisions
exclusion of evidence only when there is a clear disparity between the degree of
prejudice of the offered evidence and its probative value.” Hammer v. State, 296
S.W.3d 555, 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (internal quotation omitted). We consider
the four factors of the rule 403 analysis in turn. See Mechler, 153 S.W.3d at 440.
Probative value. We conclude that the probative value of the evidence was
high. In twelve of the twenty cases, the State bore the burden of proving that
appellant possessed visual material with intent to promote it. See TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 43.26(e). In all twenty cases, the State bore the burden of proving that
appellant knew the visual material he possessed depicted a child engaging in sexual
conduct. Id. § 43.26(a). Accordingly, the trial court reasonably could have concluded
that the voluminous number of images and videos made it more likely that appellant
knew he possessed material depicting children and intended to promote it. See, e.g.,
Leita v. State, No. 13-14-00567-CR, 2016 WL 6541843, at *8 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi-Edinburg Aug. 25, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (explaining that evidence of defendant’s possession of large amount of
child pornography “made more probable [defendant]’s knowledge that the files on
his computer were being shared, which is a fact of consequence”). Thus, the
extraneous evidence was probative and could help establish appellant’s guilt.
–27–
Potential to impress the jury irrationally and indelibly. The evidence’s
potential to impress the jury in an irrational and indelible way was minimized during
the first stage of the trial; the evidence of the additional images was admitted for
record purposes only. Although the evidence was offered for all purposes during the
punishment phase, it was not published to the jury. The jury was also given limiting
instructions5 during both phases of the trial about whether and how it could consider
evidence of extraneous offenses, and we presume the jury followed these
instructions. Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221, 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). This
factor weighs in favor of the trial court’s ruling.
Time to develop the evidence. There was only a short amount of time expended
in developing the evidence. As noted, McMillian testified that he stopped counting
the material at 15,000 items, in part for the purpose of explaining the amount of time
taken to extract the material. The State mentioned the number of items in its opening
and closing statements. During the punishment phase, McMillian identified the
exhibits and stated that each of the images and files he saw on appellant’s computer
depict child sexual abuse. The trial court reasonably could have determined that the
5
In the first phase of the trial, the jury was instructed that “if there is any testimony before you in this
case regarding the Defendant’s having committed offenses other than the offense alleged against him in the
indictment in this case, you cannot consider said testimony for any purpose unless you find and believe
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed such other offenses, if any were committed, and
even then you may only consider the same in determining the intent, motive, absence of mistake, and lack
of accident of the defendant, if any, in connection with the offense, if any, alleged against him in the
indictment in this case, and for no other purpose.” Similarly, in the second phase of the trial, the jury was
instructed to disregard any “extraneous conduct, acts or offenses, if any” that the State did not prove beyond
a reasonable doubt.
–28–
short time needed to develop the evidence weighed in favor of admission. See, e.g.,
Nasipak v. State, No. 03-21-00464-CR, 2022 WL 17070579, at *5 (Tex. App.—
Austin Nov. 18, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op. not designated for publication) (where
during a three-day trial, the State published only one image and two videos that did
not form the basis for the indictment, and related testimony was short, factor of time
needed to develop the evidence “heavily weighed in favor of admission”).
Proponent’s need for the evidence. The State’s need for the evidence was
high. The evidence regarding the State’s discovery and receipt of files from
appellant’s computer was complicated and technical. As we have discussed, the
evidence was probative both of appellant’s intent to promote and his knowledge that
the material actually depicted children. Accordingly, the trial court reasonably could
have determined that the State’s need for the evidence weighed in favor of
admission. See Leita, 2016 WL 6541843, at *8 (State’s need for the evidence was
strong where there was no direct evidence of the defendant promoting child
pornography).
Rule 403 conclusion. After review of the relevant factors, we conclude the
trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s objections to
admission of the evidence under rule 403. See id. at *8–9; see also Nasipak, 2022
WL 17070579, at *6 (concluding trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling
rule 403 objection and admitting other images and videos where factors weighed in
favor of admission).
–29–
Rule 404. Under rule 404, character evidence may be admissible for purposes
“such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
absence of mistake, or lack of accident” even though it is inadmissible to prove that
“the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.” TEX. R. EVID. 404(a)(1),
(b)(2). As we have noted, in all twenty cases, the State bore the burden of proving
appellant’s knowledge that the visual material he possessed depicted a child
engaging in sexual conduct. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(a). Evidence about the
volume of material was probative of this fact. We conclude the trial court did not err
by overruling appellant’s rule 404 objections.
Admission of testimony
In his sixth issue appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
allowing McMillian to testify regarding the severity of the child pornography that
he witnessed on appellant’s electronic devices. McMillian testified that there are
“nationally recognized categories of severity” of child pornography, created “in an
effort to help us categorize child pornography across states” with differing laws
about “what’s illegal.” He explained that “all child pornography is gauged one to
nine,” and “in Texas, everything five to nine is illegal.”
Whether to admit scientific evidence is a decision within the discretion of the
trial court, and absent an abuse of discretion, the reviewing court will not overturn
that decision. Brown v. State, 163 S.W.3d 818, 823 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet.
–30–
ref’d). If the trial court’s decision is within the “zone of reasonable disagreement,”
there is no abuse of discretion and the decision will be upheld. Id.McMillian testified that when he connected with appellant’s computer in the
months before appellant’s arrest, he “saw that the child pornography that was being
looked for was sevens, eights, and nines, which is the most egregious” and
“historically means that the suspect has been downloading child pornography for
quite some time.” Appellant initially objected to the testimony’s relevance. See TEX.
R. EVID. 402. He later objected under rules of evidence 702 and 705. See TEX. R.
EVID. 702 (testimony by expert witness); TEX. R. EVID. 705 (disclosing underlying
facts or data and examining expert about them). Appellant concedes that he “did not
make an objection beyond relevance to the initial mention of categories of child
pornography.” But he argues that he did “make timely objections to testimony
regarding the meaning and use of the categories.”
In a hearing outside the jury’s presence, the trial court heard appellant’s
objection to McMillian’s testimony under rules of evidence 702 and 705 after
counsel questioned McMillian on the subject:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The objection is—is that there’s not—he
doesn’t have sufficient knowledge and there isn’t a sufficient
determination that this is scientifically valid and is—and so his—he’s
given an expert opinion that he’s not qualified to give and it doesn’t
have sufficient basis.
The trial court overruled the objection, explaining that “Rule 702 states
differently.” Texas Rule of Evidence 702 provides that “[a] witness who is qualified
–31–
as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in
the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert’s scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue.” TEX. R. EVID. 702. In a criminal case, an adverse party
must be permitted to examine the expert about the facts and data underlying an
opinion before the expert may state the opinion before the jury. Id. 705(b). “An
expert’s opinion is inadmissible if the underlying facts or data do not provide a
sufficient basis for the opinion.” Id. 705(c).
We first consider whether McMillian was qualified to testify about the
categories. He testified that he has a Ph. D. in management and information
technologies, a master’s degree in the same subject, and a master’s degree in
business administration. He is also a licensed EMT. He worked in “pretty much
every aspect” of information technology for 30 years before becoming a certified
peace officer and investigator in the Internet Crimes Against Children6 (ICAC) unit
of the Collin County Sheriff’s Office. He testified that he also has had training
specific to his work:
Q. Are there certain certifications of licenses that you hold that allow
you to do your job?
A. Yes, there’s many that we have to do on the tech side. Pretty much
every aspect of what we do, there’s some type of training for it. So when
6
McMillian explained that ICAC is “a specialized group of police investigators,” and because the work
is “highly technical” and “takes a lot of hours,” “it’s a very, very small group” of approximately 60 officers
in Texas. ICAC is also a national organization “run by the federal government and pushed down to regions”
in the states.
–32–
we’re doing online solicitation, there’s a specific class that we take for
undercover chats and undercover work dealing with child prostitution.
There’s cases that we deal with peer-to-peer networking, file sharing.
There’s actually three of those based on the technology that’s being
used.
We do ICAC investigational techniques. We’re doing certifications in
the actual forensic software we use. So Magnet AXIOM is the main one
that I use, or Cellebrite depending on if it’s a computer or a cell phone.
We also get certifications in the industry. So as an overall umbrella
certification, I’m a certified computer forensics expert, meaning
regardless of the software, I can do forensics on the computer by hand.
He explained that he has investigated “close to a thousand” cases of internet crimes
against children, involving some 250,000 to 300,000 files of child pornography.
Accordingly, we conclude that McMillian was qualified to testify about the
techniques he used in his investigation in this case, and the trial court did not err by
overruling appellant’s objection that McMillian gave “an expert opinion that he’s
not qualified to give.”
We next consider appellant’s objection that McMillian’s use of the categories
in his investigation was not “scientifically valid.” Although McMillian conceded
that there was no “scientific determination” showing “that this rating of images is
accepted in the scientific community,” he explained that it was part of his training
through ICAC, and the subject of one of his certification classes. He explained that
the categories are used by state and federal law enforcement as a method of focusing
an investigation on images that are illegal. McMillian explained that “the further the
number goes towards nine, the more extreme the child pornography is,” and “[t]he
–33–
extreme torture of children, the killing of children, blood, the rape of children would
be a nine.” He testified that in his training and experience, he had verified the
categories on multiple occasions.
McMillian testified that the categories are recognized nationally and that he
has viewed more than 300,000 of these files. He explained that the categories help
him to determine if a particular image is illegal in Texas. We conclude the trial court
did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony. TEX. R. EVID. 702. We
overrule appellant’s sixth issue.
–34–
CONCLUSION
We reform the judgment in trial court cause number 366-81685-2022 (this
Court’s No. 05-22-00986) to reflect that the sentence is to run consecutively.
In all other respects, the trial court’s twenty judgments are affirmed.
220967f.u05
220968f.u05 /Maricela Breedlove/
220969f.u05 MARICELA BREEDLOVE
220970f.u05 JUSTICE
220971f.u05
220972f.u05
220973f.u05
220974f.u05
220975f.u05
220976f.u05
220977f.u05
220978f.u05
220979f.u05
220980f.u05
220981f.u05
220982f.u05
220983f.u05
220984f.u05
220985f.u05
220986f.u05
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
–35–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81666-
No. 05-22-00967-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–36–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81667-
No. 05-22-00968-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–37–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81668-
No. 05-22-00969-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–38–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81669-
No. 05-22-00970-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–39–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81670-
No. 05-22-00971-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–40–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81671-
No. 05-22-00972-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–41–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81672-
No. 05-22-00973-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–42–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81673-
No. 05-22-00974-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–43–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81674-
No. 05-22-00975-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–44–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81675-
No. 05-22-00976-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–45–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81676-
No. 05-22-00977-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–46–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81677-
No. 05-22-00978-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–47–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81678-
No. 05-22-00979-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–48–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81679-
No. 05-22-00980-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–49–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81680-
No. 05-22-00981-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–50–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81681-
No. 05-22-00982-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–51–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81682-
No. 05-22-00983-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–52–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81683-
No. 05-22-00984-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–53–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81684-
No. 05-22-00985-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–54–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER CHAIREZ, On Appeal from the 366th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-81685-
No. 05-22-00986-CR V. 2022.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED to reflect that “This sentence shall run: CONSECUTIVELY,” in
accordance with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.
In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2023.
–55–