IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-02-118-CR
     DANNY BEATLEY,
                                                                              Appellant
     v.
     THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                                              Appellee
From the 359th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Court # 01-09-05568-CR
                                                                                                               Â
CONCURRING OPINION
                                                                                                               Â
      I concur in affirming the judgment. I would, however, sustain Beatleyâs complaint about the admissibility of the âexpertâ testimony, because the State failed to meet its burden of showing that the witness is qualified on the specific matter in question. Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
      A court of appeals may no longer presume that the trial judge disregarded inadmissible testimony in a bench trial. Gipson v. State, 844 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Thus, a harm analysis is required.
      In light of the reports and extensive testimony from Dr. Roger Saunders and Dr. Carmen Petzold, both offered by Beatley and heard by the trial judge who was the fact finder at the punishment hearing, I would find the error harmless. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b) (error harmless unless substantial rights violated).
                                                                   BILL VANCE
                                                                   Justice
Concurring opinion delivered and filed July 30, 2003
Do not publish
e issue and affirm the judgment.
Â
FELIPE REYNA
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed July 25, 2007
Do not publish
[CRPM]
[1] Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The original clerkÂs record contains the order appointing counsel signed five days after Gamble signed his application for appointed counsel.