|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-10-00170-CR
______________________________
WILLIAM ALBERT SCHATTE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court
Fannin County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23010
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
William Albert Schatte appeals from his convictions on his plea of guilty, made before a jury, for aggravated sexual assault in four cases, and for one conviction for indecency with a child. In a unified brief, he complains that the trial court committed reversible error at the punishment phase that requires remanding the cause for a new hearing on punishment.
In this case, he was convicted for indecency with a child by sexual contact, and was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine.
Schatte raises a single issue on appeal, in which he contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a prior bad act—anal contact with the victim—although the State had not given him notice of its intent to use the evidence, notwithstanding his request for such notice.
Because the issue raised in each appeal is identical, for the reasons stated in our opinion dated this day in Schatte v. State, cause number 06-10-00166-CR, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: May 25, 2011
Date Decided: May 26, 2011
Do Not Publish
margin-right: 0.5in"> Q No. I'm not trying to trick you or anything I just want to get in the record that you did initial -- you initialled all the pages of the Downs report right? One, two, three, four, five, and six. You initialled all those pages?
A Yes.
. . . .
Q One last question. If Sheila Manning says that she gave you the complete report that I've marked as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1, which is the colored copied one. If she said she gave you that complete report and that you signed, initialled it and gave it back to her, you have no reason to disagree with that would you?
A I have no reason to disagree that she might have given it to me and I initialled it, but I don't ever remember reading over it.
The failure of one party to read a contract, or any of the materials appertaining to it, however, does not equate with a failure of the other party to disclose the information contained within the four corners of that contract. Absent a showing Cendant misrepresented the information disclosed in written form, Falconer was obligated to protect himself by reading the contract. He cannot now be excused from the consequences of failing to meet that obligation. See Gillis, 694 S.W.2d at 147; Amouri, 20 S.W.3d at 169.
Conclusion
Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Falconer, we conclude there is no evidence showing Cendant failed to disclose any information in an attempt to fraudulently induce Falconer to contract. On the contrary, the evidence conclusively establishes Cendant disclosed all matters material to Falconer's claims. Because there is no evidence to support the jury's findings, we reverse the trial court's judgment and render judgment that Falconer take nothing.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: March 31, 2004
Date Decided: April 9, 2004