TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. 448913, HONORABLE DAVID CRAIN, JUDGE PRESIDING
The complainant was appellant's former wife. The information alleged that appellant violated a protective order by intentionally and knowingly going within 200 yards of the complainant's residence "located at 25117 Andrew Drive, Travis County, Texas." By two points of error, appellant contends the court erred by admitting the testimony of Roye Strawn that the complainant's address was that alleged in the information.
Appellant first contends that Strawn was not competent to testify to the complainant's address because he did not have personal knowledge of the matter. See Tex. R. Evid. 602. In his brief, appellant states that Strawn's only knowledge of the complainant's address was what he was told by a 911 operator. This is a misstatement of the record. Strawn testified that he was the developer of the Old Ferry subdivision, where the complainant lived. Strawn personally assisted the surveyor in laying out the subdivision. Strawn lives in the subdivision near the complainant, and is the executor of the estate that owns the house in which the complainant resides. Strawn manages the property and executed the lease by which the complainant rented the house. Strawn had seen the mailbox in front of the complainant's residence on which the address appears. This evidence demonstrates that Strawn's testimony that the complainant lived at 25117 Andrew Drive in Travis County, Texas, was based on his personal knowledge and firsthand observation. See Howeth v. State, 635 S.W.2d 636, 638-39 (Tex. App.--Austin 1982), rev'd on other grounds, 645 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Point of error one is overruled.
Appellant's second point of error is that Strawn's lay opinion regarding the complainant's address was not based on his perceptions. See Tex. R. Evid. 701. Strawn testified to the address as a matter of fact, not opinion. In any case, his testimony was shown to be based on his personal perceptions, as previously discussed. Point of error two is overruled.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Bea Ann Smith, Justice
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Jones and B. A. Smith
Affirmed
Filed: May 6, 1999
Do Not Publish