COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
MARCUS ANTHONY MARTINEZ, §
No. 08-12-00059-CR
Appellant, §
Appeal from the
v. §
Criminal District Court Number Three
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS, of Tarrant County, Texas
§
Appellee. (TC#1212244D)
§
OPINION
Appellant was charged by indictment for committing the offense of engaging in sexual
contact with MM, a child under seventeen years of age (Count I) and indecency with MM, a child
under age seventeen, by exposure (Count II). After pleading not guilty, a jury returned a verdict
finding Appellant guilty of indecency with a child by contact and indecency with a child by
exposure in cause number 1212244D. After entering judgment on the jury’s verdict, the trial
court sentenced Appellant to six years’ confinement on each count, to be served concurrently.
Appellant complains on appeal that the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
Appellant raises two issues on appeal. In Issue One, Appellant expressly asserts that
“[t]he State’s presentation of evidence left a false impression that the complainant, [IM], had no
prior sexual history.” In Issue Two, Appellant asserts the trial court erred when it prohibited him
from inquiring into IM’s sexual history as a possible explanation for IM’s claims.
We have examined the portions of the record to which Appellant has directed us in support
of his issues on appeal as well as the entire record on appeal. MM is the child complainant in
cause number 1212244D and this appeal. IM is the child complainant in cause number 1212239D
and is not the complainant in this appeal.1
Neither issue Appellant presents in the appeal before us, and none of the record to which
Appellant directs his complaints, relates to the complaining witness MM or to any testimony or
evidence offered, admitted, or denied regarding MM. Rather, we observe that Appellant’s issues
and complaints are solely and expressly directed to evidentiary matters relating to IM. IM is not
the complainant identified in the charges set out in the indictment by which Appellant was
convicted in cause number 1212244D and from which he appeals. Because Appellant presents
nothing for our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d
843, 845 (Tex. App. — El Paso 2007, no pet.) (where appellant failed to raise an issue for review,
court affirmed trial court judgment as it had no right to re-draft and articulate what it believed
appellant may have intended to raise as error on appeal).
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice
April 9, 2014
Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
1
Appellant was prosecuted in cause numbers 1212239D and 1212244D, which were tried together.
2