|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-10-00044-CR
______________________________
CALVIN WAYNE BURNHAM, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 123rd Judicial District Court
Panola County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2005-C-0007
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Calvin Wayne Burnham appeals from his convictions by the trial court on four charges of aggravated sexual assault of a child and four charges of indecency with a child. Burnham has filed a single brief, in which he raises issues common to all of his appeals.[1] He argues that the trial court committed reversible error in considering evidence from a previous revocation hearing when granting the State’s second amended motion to adjudicate guilt and in admitting the results of a polygraph examination. Burnham also complains that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he violated any conditions of his community supervision.
We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Burnham’s appeal in cause number 06-10-00038-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that reversible error has not been shown in this case.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: December 14, 2010
Date Decided: December 15, 2010
Do Not Publish
OPINION ON REHEARING
In the above-captioned case, we affirmed Calvin Wayne Burnham’s conviction of four counts of aggravated sexual assault and four counts of indecency with a child, his stepdaughter. Burnham has filed a single motion for rehearing in all of his cases asking that this Court rehear the matter.[2] Specifically, he alleges that the State violated Article 42.12, Section 21(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in amending its motion to adjudicate guilt “after the commencement of taking evidence at the hearing.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21(b) (Vernon Supp. 2010).
We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion on rehearing of this date on Burnham’s appeal in cause number 06-10-00038-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that Burnham’s complaint on rehearing was not preserved for our review.
We deny the motion for rehearing.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date: January 26, 2011
Do Not Publish
[1]Burnham appeals from four convictions of aggravated sexual assault of a child and four convictions of indecency with a child, cause numbers 06-10-00038-CR through 06-10-00045-CR.
[2]Burnham seeks rehearing of our opinions affirming four convictions of aggravated sexual assault of a child and four convictions of indecency with a child, cause numbers 06-10-00038-CR through 06-10-00045-CR.