Deleon, Steven

PD-1318-15
PD-1318-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 11/18/2015 1:26:48 PM
Accepted 11/18/2015 3:43:04 PM
ABEL ACOSTA
CLERK
NO.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

STEVEN DELEON,
Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
CAUSE NUMBER 03-13-00202-CR

ON APPEAL FROM THE 421“ DISTRICT COURT
OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NUMBER 2012-166
HONORABLE TODD BLOMERTH, PRESIDING

KERRISA CHELKOWSKI
The Law Office of Kerrisa Chelkowski
1017 South Alamo
San Antonio, Texas 78210
Telephone: (210) 228-9393
November 18, 2015 Telecopier: (210) 226-7540
State Bar No. 24034373

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES
TRIAL JUDGE:
Honorable Todd Blornerth, 4215‘ District Court

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS:
Luke Alsobrook — Counsel at Trial
Bar No. 24059374
Katy Alsobrook — Counsel at Trial and on Appeal
Bar No. 24051894
Assistant District Attorneys for Caldwell County
201 E. San Antonio Street
Lockhait, Texas 78644
TELEPHONE: (512) 398-1811

Lisa McMinn — Counsel on Appeal
Bar No. 13803300
State Prosecuting Attorney
P.O. Box 13046
Austin, Texas 78711
TELEPHONE: (512) 463-5724
APPELLANT/PETITIONER’S COUNSEL:
Kevin Collins — Counsel at Trial
Bar No. 04625510
600 Navarro, Suite 250
San Antonio, Texas 78205
TELEPHONE: (210) 223-9480
J eb Lock — Counsel at Trial
Bar No. 24050943
1011 South Alamo
San Antonio, Texas 78210
TELEPHONE: (210) 602-9646
Kerrisa Chelkowski — Counsel on Appeal
Bar No. 24034373
1017 South Alamo
San Antonio, Texas 78210
TELEPHONE: (210) 228-9393
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS PANEL:
Chief Justice Jeff Rose — Authored the opinion
Justice Bob Pemberton
Justice Cindy Olson Bourland

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE1 S1

PARTIES TO THE CASE ................................................................ ..ii

INDEX OF AUTHORTIES ................................................................ ..v
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ................................ ..Vii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................... ..2
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................ ..3
GROUND FOR REVIEW ................................................................. ..3
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES .................................................... ..4
PRAYER .................................................................................... ..12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................ ..13

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .................................................... ..14

APPENDIX ................................................................................ . . 15

iv
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE§S[
CASES
Abbott v. State,
196 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App.—-Waco 2006, pet. refd) ......................... ..8

Archie v. State,
340 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ........................................ ..8

Bustamante v. State,
48 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) .......................................... ..6

Dickinson v. State,
685 S.W.2d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) ........................................ ..9

Eastep v. State,
919 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1996) ...................................... ..10

F[ores v. State,
194 S.W.3d 34 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2006) .................................... ..7

Garrett v. State,
632 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) ........................................ ..9

Guidry v. State,
9 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ........................................... ..4

Johnson v. State,
611 S.W.2d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) ....................................... ..10

Ladd v. State,
3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ........................................... ..6

Mosley v. State,
983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ..................................... ..7, 8

Owen V. State,
656 S.W.2d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) .................................... ..9, 10
Patrick v. State,
906 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) ..................................... ..10

Pollard v. State,
552 S.W.2d 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) ........................................ ..6

Riney v. State,
28 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) ........................................ .. 10

Silva v. State,
989 S.W.2d 64 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1998) .................................. ..6

Simpson v. State,
119 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ........................................ ..6

Smith v. State,
65 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.) .............................. ..4

Wesbroolc v. State,
29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) .......................................... ..8

Wood V. State,
18 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) .......................................... ..6

RULES & STATUTES

TEX. R. APP. PRO. 38 .................................................................. ..4, 9

TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(a) .................................................................... ..7

Vi
 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellant believes and respectfully suggests to this Court that the important

issues raised in this petition are worthy of oral argument. Appellant believes that

presentation of oral argument in this case will assist this Court in understanding the

effects of the Third Court of Appeals’ opinion on the lower courts which are bound

to follow its law. Therefore, for the above reasons he respectfully requests oral

argument.

vii
 NO.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

STEVEN DELEON,
Appellant
V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
CAUSE NUMBER 03-13-00202-CR

ON APPEAL FROM THE 421“ DISTRICT COURT
OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NUMBER 2012-166
HONORABLE TODD BLOMERTH, PRESIDING

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS:
NOW COMES, Steven DeLeOn, Appellant in this cause, by and through his
attorney of record, Kerrisa Chelkowski, and pursuant to the provisions of TEX. R.

APP. PRO. 66, et seq., moves this Court to grant discretionary review, and in

support shows the following:
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant, Steven DeLeon, was charged by indictment of one count of

Continuous Sexual Abuse of A Child, and two counts of Aggravated Sexual

Assault of a Child, each count a First Degree Felony, in Cause Number 2012-166.

CR1: 9-10.’ Trial before a jury was held in the 4215‘ District Court of Caldwell

County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Blomerth Presiding. RRl: 1. DeLeon pled

“Not Guilty” to the allegations on February 20"‘, 2013 and the jury returned with

its Verdict on February 25”‘, 2013. RR7: 68. DeLeon was found “guilty” of the

single count of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child. R7: 68.
The jury sentenced DeLeon to 32 years imprisonment. RR7: 128. DeLeon

filed a timely Notice of Appeal on March 18, 2013. CR2: 707. Petitioner

complained on appeal, among other issues, that the trial court erred when it denied

his Motion for Mistrial after he objected to the prosecution’s improper comment on

his failure to testify. This Petition challenges the Third Court of Appeals ruling on

Appellant uses the following abbreviations to refer to the record in this case:
1

a. CRV0l#: page # refers to the Clerk’s record containing the evidence, documents,
motions and pleadings of the parties, judgment, orders, etc. of the court. Supp. refers
to the Supplemental C1erk’s Record.

b. RRVol.#: page# refers to the volumes prepared by the Court Reporters in connection
with Appellant’s pretrial hearings, voir dire, trial, sentencing, etc. MNT refers to the
record on the hearing for the Motion for New Trial.

c. See App.Br.SOF: _ refers to the Statement of Facts section of Appellant’s Brief.
whether trial court abused its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s Motion for

Mistrial.

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 29, 2015, the Third Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion

affirming the trial court’s decision attached in the Appendix. DeLe0n v. State, No.

03-13-00202~CR, (Tex. App.—Austin, May 29, 2015). The appellate court found

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s Motion

for Mistrial after he objected to the prosecution’s improper comment on his failure

to testify, and further denied Petitioner’s remaining points of error.

On September 17, 2015, the Third Court of Appeals overruled Appellant’s

Motion for Rehearing. After this Honorable Court granted Appellant’s Motion for

Extension of Time to File the Petition for Discretionary Review, Appel1ant’s

Petition is timely filed on November 18, 2015.

GROUND FOR REVIEW
SOLE ISSUE: The Third Court of Appeals erred in finding the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s Motion for Mistrial after the

prosecution improperly commented on Petitioner’s failure to testify.
 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
Jury argument is limited to: (1) summations of the evidence; (2) reasonable

deductions from the evidence; (3) answers to argument of opposing counsel; and

(4) a plea for law enforcement. Guidiy v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133, 154 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1999). “A comment on an accused’s failure to testify violates the accused’s

state and federal constitutional privileges against self—incrimination.” Smith v,

State, 65 S.W.3d 332, 339 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.); see also TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.08 (Vernon 2005).

At the sentencing phase of the trial, during the state’s closing argument, the

prosecutor stated to the jury:

“Mr. Alsobrook: And if the Defendant had taken the stand, admitted
what he had done, and begged for forgiveness, I believe the minimum
sentence would be appropriate. But that’s not what we have here.

Mr. Collins: Your honor, could we approach the bench‘?

(Bench Conference)

Mr. Collins: 1 am going to ask for a mistrial. He did not testify at
punishment. He just said to the jury, if he got up on the stand at this
phase and told you —

l\/Ir. Alsobrook: I was specifically referring to guilt/innocence.

Mr. Collins: He didn’t say that. He said, if he got up here and asked
for forgiveness — this --- I’m asking for a mistrial, Judge.

The Court: Well, you’re not going to get one. I am going to instruct
the jury to disregard that.

Mr. Collins: That’s unbelievable.
 (Open Court.)
The Court: Ladies and gentlemen, the last comment by the prosecutor
is improper, and you will not consider that for any purpose
whatsoever.

Mr. Collins: Your honor, is that a ruling on the mistrial, as well?

The Court: Denied.” RR7: 124-125.

This was a blatant and intentional comment on DeLeon’s failure to testify.

To construe it as anything else would be outrageous. During the guilt/innocence

stage of the trial DeLeon’s took the stand to testify. However, DeLeon did not

testify during the punishment phase. Even if the state tried to argue that it was

referring to his trial testimony, which it clearly was not, would be more absurd.

No defendant would take the stand during guilt/innocence and profess their guilt

and take responsibility for the crime he is accused of. That would completely

vacate the purpose of pleading “not guilty” and letting ajudge or jury decide on the

verdict. The only time a defendant might take the stand and profess his guilt and

apologize is during the sentencing phase of the trial and even that is improbable, as

it would vacate any positive result on appeal. The state clearly commented on

DeLeon’s right to remain silent thereby violating his Fifth Amendment right.

The Third Couit of Appeals relied on this Court’s direction when reviewing

the denial of a motion for mistrial and reviewed under an abuse of discretion

standard. As this Court has ruled, the denial of a motion for mistrial, which is

appropriate for “highly prejudicial and incurable errors,” is reviewed under an
abuse of discretion standard. See Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 272 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2003) (quoting Wood V. State, 18 S.W.3d 642, 648 (Tex. Crim. App.

2000)); Laola’ v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Over thirty years ago in Pollard v. State, 552 S.W.2d 475 (Tex. Crim. App.

1977) this Honorable Court held that where (Pollard) was the only person who

could refute the complainant’s testimony; the prosecutor’s reference to the

complainant’s testimony as uncontroverted was a comment on (Pollard’s) failure to

testify. The same reasoning applies here because Appellant was the only person

who could have testified and apologized to the jury, which in effect would be a

admission of guilt, in answer to the prosecutor’s comments to the jury.

A prosecutor cannot comment on a defendant’s failure to testify because

such a comment violates the privilege against self-incrimination and the freedom

from compulsion to testify contained in the Fifth Amendment of the United States

Constitution and Article 1, section 10, of the Texas Constitution. Bustamante v.

State, 48 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). A prosecutor’s statement

constitutes a direct comment on a defendant’s failure to testify if it references

evidence that only the defendant can supply. Silva v. State, 989 S.W.2d 64 (Tex.

App. San Antonio 1998). The prosecution knew that an apology from DeLeon

would be a de facto admission of guilt.

Because commenting on a defendant’s failure to testify violates both the
U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution this error is constitutional error under

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure (T.R.A.P.) Rule 44.2. Constitutional error,

within the context of T.R.A.P. Rule 44.2 (a), is “an error that directly offends the

United States Constitution or the Texas Constitution without regard to any statute

or rule that might also apply.” Flores v. State, 194 S.W.3d 34 (Tex. App.

Texarkana 2006). Rule 44.2(a) provides: “If the appellate record in a criminal case

reveals constitutional error that is subject to harmless error review, the court of

appeals must reverse a judgment of conviction or punishment unless the court

determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the

conviction or punishment.”

The question of whether a mistrial should have been granted involves most,

if not all, of the same considerations that attend a harm analysis. A mistrial is the
trial court’s remedy for improper conduct that is “so prejudicial that expenditure of

further time and expense would be wasteful and futile.” In effect, the trial court

conducts an appellate function: determining whether improper conduct is so

harmful that the case must be redone. Of course, the harm analysis is conducted in

light of the trial court’s curative instruction. Therefore, the appropriate test for

evaluating whether the trial court abused its discretion in overruling a motion for

mistrial is a version of the test originally set out in Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d

249, 259-60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), a harm analysis case.
 The Mosley factors that the appellate court must consider in determining

whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial during the

punishment phase are: (l) the prejudicial effect, (2) curative measures, and (3) the

likelihood of the same punishment being assessed. See Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at

259; see Abbott v. State, 196 S.W.3d 334, 347 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, pet. refd).

Considering the Mosley factors, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the

motion for mistrial and the appellate court further erred in affirming the decision to

deny the motion. The prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s remark was incurable

because the comment was direct and flagrantly improper. The trial court’s

instruction to disregard was an insufficient curative measure in this instance. See

Wesbrook V. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, ll5~l6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see also Archie

v. State, 340 S.W.3d 734, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

Finally, DeLeon was facing a sentence of a minimum of 25 years in prison

with no possibility of parole. Punishment evidence included only of numerous

witnesses discussing DeLeon’s good nature, professional demeanor, and

appropriate interaction with his students. The State did not put on any punishment

evidence or witnesses. Their entire case at punishment relied on their jury

argument. The likelihood of the same punishment being assessed without the

State’s comment is very low.

The trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after the prosecution
commented on Petitioner’s failure to testify. The Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure states that the failure of a defendant to testify “shall not be taken as a

circumstance against him, nor shall the same be alluded to or commented on by

counsel.” TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. art 38.08. The test of whether closing

remarks are proper is whether the language was such that a jury would naturally

and necessarily take it to be a comment on the accused’s failure to testify. Garrett

v. State, 632 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982).

The facts of this case mirror those of Owen v. State, 656 S.W.2d 458, 459

(Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In Owen, the prosecution commented that the Appellant

had the opportunity, during the punishment phase, to take the stand and say he was

sorry, but that he did not do it. The prosecutor went on to say that the jury should

not assess probation as punishment where the defendant had not apologized for

what happened. This Court stated that if the remark complained of called the

jury’s attention to the absence of evidence, which only the testimony from the

appellant could supply, the conviction must be reversed. The remarks that the

defendant failed to apologize during the punishment phase were said to be direct

references to what the jury had not heard the appellant say.

Similarly, in Dickinson v. State, 685 S.W.2d 320, 322 (Tex. Crim. App.

1984), the court found it was error to deny a mistrial where the prosecutor stated,

during the punishment phase, that appellant had failed to express any remorse,
shame or pity toward his victim.

In the present case, as in Owen, the prosecutor’s comments: “And if the

defendant had taken the stand, admitted what he had done, and begged for

forgiveness, I believe the minimum sentence would be appropriate. But that’s not

what we have here,” can only be construed as a reference to DeLeon’s failure to

testify at the punishment phase because that was the only time in which it would

have been somewhat logical and/or relevant for him to express remorse after he

pled not guilty. The prohibition against a comment on the defendant’s failure to

testify is mandatory and adverse effects of any references are not usually cured by

an instruction to the jury to disregard. Johnson v. State, 611 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1981).

To constitute a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify, it is

insufficient that the jury might have inferred the prosecutor alluded to the failure to

testify; the language used must make the inference necessary. Eastep v. State, 919

S.W.2d 151, 154 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1996), afl’d on other grounds, 941 S.W.2d 130

(Tex. Crim. App. 1997), overruled by Riney v. State, 28 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2000). A comment that calls the jury’s attention to the absence of evidence,
which only the defendant can supply, is reversible. Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d

481, 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

10
 CONCLUSION

It is necessary for this Court to provide guidance and direction to the lower

courts to ensure that further defendant’s constitutional rights are not violated when

the prosecution commits improper argument. The lower courts need this guidance

and direction on ruling on motions for mistrial when a defendant’s constitutional

rights have been violated. The trial court erred in denying DeLeon’s motion for

mistrial after the prosecution commented on DeLeon’s failure to testify. Fuither,

the Third Court of Appeals erred in finding that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the Motion for Mistrial. DeLeon’s constitutional rights were

blatantly violated. Lastly, guidance by this Court will also ensure that prosecutors

across Texas are not violating defendant’s constitutional rights during jury

argument and to ensure the right to a fair trial.

11
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Steven DeLeon, Petitioner

respectfully requests this Court grant this Petition for Discretionary Review,

reverse the Third Court of Appeals’ opinion affirming the conviction and remand

Petitioner’s case for a new trial.

Respectfixlly submitted,

Law Office of Kerrisa Chelkowski
1017 South Alamo
San Antonio, Texas 78210
Telephone: (210) 228—9393
Telecopier: (210) 226-7540
Email: kerrisa@defendtexas.com

By: /s/ Kerrisa Chelkowski
KERRISA CHELKOWSKI
State Bar No: 24034373

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER:
STEVEN DELEON
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kerrisa Chelkowski, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this

foregoing document was sent Via certified mail to the Caldwell County District

Attomey’s Office at 201 E. San Antonio Street, P.O. Box 869, Lockhart, Texas

78644 and to the State Prosecuting Attorney located at PO. Box 13046 Austin,

Texas 78711-3046 on this the 18“ day ofNovernber, 2015.

/s/ Kerrisa Chelkowski
KERRISA CI-IBLKOWSKI
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (TRAP) 9.4(i)(3), the
undersigned certifies this brief complies with the type-volume limitations or TRAP
9.4(i)(3)

1.EXCLUSIVE OF THE EXEMPTED PORTIONS IN TRAP 9.4(i)(3), THE
BRIEF CONTAINS (select one):

A. 3,005 words, OR
B. lines of text in monospaced typeface.

2. THE BRIEF HAS BEEN PREPARED (select one):
A. in proportionally spaced typeface using:

Software Name and Version: Microsoft Office Word 2011
in (Typeface Name and Font Size): 14 pt. Times New Roman, or

B. in monospaced (nonproportianally spaced) typeface using:

Typeface name and number of characters per inch:

3. THE UNDERSIGNED UNDERSTANDS A MATERIAL
MISREPRESENTATION IN COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE, OR
CIRCUMVENTION OF THE TYPE-VOLUME LIMITS IN TRAP 9.4(i)(3),
MAY RESULT IN THE COURT’S STRIKING THE BRIEF AND IMPOSING
SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PERSON SIGNING THE BRIEF.

/s/Kerrisa Chelkowski
Signature of Filing Party
APPENDIX
 TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

N O. 03-13-00202-CR

Steven DeLeon, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, 421ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 2012-166, HONORABLE TODD A. BLOMERTH, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant Steven DeLeon guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a young
child and assessed punishment at thirty-two years in prison. DeLeon contends that insufficient

evidence supports the judgment and that the trial court abused its discretion and violated the

constitution by refusing to allow him to make a defense and fully confront witnesses against him.

He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial when

the prosecutor commented on his exercise of his right to remain silent and by imposing a sentence

without the possibility of parole. We will affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND
DeLeon taught physical education at the elementary school M.G. attended. He met

M.G. and her mother, DA., in January 2010 when M.G. started playing on the school’s fourth-grade

basketball team. M.G. played basketball through the summer of 201 1, and DeLeon spent time with

D.A. ’s family. The adults went on one date and never became romantically linked, though there was
testimony that D.A. wanted more than a friendship. DeLeon testified that he helped D.A. with her

finances, helped her start a checking account, and counseled her about her relationship with her

son, D.G., who DeLeon also taught. DeLeon attended a parent—teacher conference regarding D.G.

in place of D.A., helped M.G. with homework, and stayed with the children, sometimes overnight.

The children stayed with DeLeon and his brother overnight once. M.G. testified that it was during

such stays that DeLeon assaulted her in the summer of 201 1.

M.G. first reported an assault in May 2012 after her mother found a recording of a
March 19, 2012 telephone conversation between M.G. and DeLeon. The conversation began with

a discussion of M.G.’s grandfather’s surgery, but veered into sex-related topics. DeLeon deemed

the shift in topics inappropriate and said that M.G. was responsible for the shift, but he admitted

that he participated in the inappropriate discussions. In a discussion prompted by M.G.’s query of

why DeLeon seemed uncomfortable whenever female body parts were discussed, DeLeon said, “It’ s

kind of like with you like I remember like I would tell you: Well, am I hurting you? Or you know

is everything okay? I just want to make sure that you’re like comfortable.” DeLeon testified that

this statement referred to a basketball practice during which he had unknowingly hurt M.G. by

inadvertently touching her breast and she had been embarrassed to explain her pain in front of

the other players. The conversation also spanned other topics ranging from the inappropriateness

of physical violence in a relationship to M.G. getting whistled at in a store to the size of DeLeon’s

girlfiiend’s vagina. D.A. made a copy of the recording and took it to school officials, leading to the

police investigation and this prosecution.

M.G. testified at trial that DeLeon assaulted her four times during the summer of

201 l—-three times at her home and once at his. She testified that one time he lay on top of her with
his clothes on. M.G. said that another time he touched the outside of her private parts with his

finger. She testified that DeLeon asked if she was okay or if he was hurting her. She said that, after

this incident, she requested a different babysitter, but her mother still chose DeLeon. She testified

that when she and her brother stayed overnight at DeLeon’s house, DeLeon touched her private parts

while her brother slept next to them. In the final incident, she testified that she and DeLeon were

in her mother’s room talking when DeLeon pulled his pants down and told her to touch his penis.

She said that she touched it briefly and that he then grabbed her hand, put it onto his penis, and

moved their hands up and down on his penis while he grunted. She testified that, after five minutes,

something gooey came out of his penis.

M.G. conceded at trial that she had related different versions of these assaults at

different times to different audiences. M.G. told her mother that DeLeon assaulted her once, told

a child advocate about three instances, and testified about four instances. At trial, she recanted her

allegation to the child advocate that DeLeon had touched the inside of her vagina. She testified that

the touching hurt but had told the child advocate that it had not hurt. At trial, she rejected her report

that one of the incidents occurred during the day, insisting that it occurred at night. M.G. told a

child advocate that the phone recorded the March 19 phone conversation without her knowledge,

but she recanted that assertion at trial and explained the steps needed to make a recording. M.G.

acknowledged at trial that she was sometimes perceived as “overly dramatic.”

DeLeon argued that the allegations of assault were unfounded. He denied that he

touched M.G.’s sexual organ and that she touched his. He denied being unclothed around the

children and denied sleeping in a bed with them. DeLeon testified that his relationship with D.A.

and her family changed in the fall of 2011 when she began dating a man whom DeLeon described
as extremely jealous. D.A. changed M.G.’s phone number—M.G. linked the change to D.A.’s new

boyfriend, but D.A. testified it was because DeLeon yelled at M.G. on the phone after she did not

invite him to her holiday band concert in December 2011. M.G. testified that she surreptitiously

stored his number in her new phone under the name “William.” DeLeon testified that he decided

not to communicate with the family beginning in December 201 1. In February 2012, D.A. contacted

him after he sent a flyer to students at his school (including D.G.) regarding an event in Austin.

DeLeon testified that D.A. called to tell him that M.G. (who was now attending a different school

for sixth graders) wanted to attend.

DeLeon testified that D.A. used inappropriate langiage around the children when

talking about topics including her ex-husbands and ex—boyfn'ends. He testified that M.G. picked up

the language from her mother. He acknowledged that he fell into similar patterns when around the

family, including during the recorded March 19 telephone conversation.

DeLeon’s brother, who has lived with DeLeon for almost fifteen years, testified that

he never heard DeLeon express a sexual interest in children. DeLeon’s brother testified that they

watched television together the night that M.G. said DeLeon assaulted her at the brothers’ home.

He testified that DeLeon slept on the couch that night. DeLeon’s brother also testified that the home

is 1,300 square feet, that the bedroom doors had been removed during a remodel, and that the interior

of the bedrooms was visible from the living room.

A student, a parent of a student, and two fellow teachers testified about DeLeon. The

student testified that she liked him, found him truthful, and never had any problems with him. The

patent testified that she and her daughter loved DeLeon and that he loved the kids, was truthful, and

was a mentor. One fellow teacher described him as truthful, while another testified that she did not
like him because he was not prompt. She testified that she told DeLeon she thought he acted too

familiar with all the girls on the team and that he should not be alone with any of the girls because

it looked inappropriate, but said that she did not see him pay any extra attention to M.G. The teacher

testified that she found M.G. to be truthful.

At the punishment phase, DeLeon’s friends, colleagues, and family testified in

support of DeLeon. They described him as a good teacher and a good person who was supportive

and appropriate with children. A psychologist evaluated DeLeon and testified that the test results
showed no sexual deviancy, that he is quite conservative in his sexual practices, that he showed no

sexual interest in children, and that he scored very low on a scale of potential recidivism.

DISCUSSION
DeLeon raises four issues on appeal. He contends that the court improperly limited

his ability to confront witnesses and put on a defense. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to

prove all of the required elements. He contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for

mistrial based on the prosecution’s comment on his failure to testify. DeLeon also asserts that the

sentence was unconstitutional because it is disproportionate and cruel and unusual.

DeLeon was not harmed by any error in the exclusion of evidence.

DeLeon contends that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his right to

confront witnesses when it prevented him from cross-examining D.A. about problems she had with

Child Protective Services, in particular D.A.’s report to DeLeon that she had abused her son.

DeLeon also contends that the trial court improperly refused to allow him to question D.A. regarding

her anger after he ignored her romantic advances toward him. He contends that this evidence
would have shown that D.A.’s report of his alleged abuse was a tactic to divert attention from her

abuse of her children.

The Constitution guarantees defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a

complete defense. Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986); see also U.S. Const. amends. VI

(compulsory process and confrontation of witnesses) & XIV (due process). There is, however, no

absolute constitutional right to present favorable evidence. Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 659

(Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (citing United States v. Schefler, 523 U.S. 303, 316 (1998)). The right to

present relevant evidence is subject to reasonable restrictions through evidentiary rules that are

not arbitrary or disproportionate to the rule’s purpose. 111.; see also Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317,

329 n.26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The improper exclusion of evidence may establish a constitutional

violation (1) when a state evidentiary rule categorically and arbitrarily prohibits the defendant

from offering relevant evidence that is vital to his defense; or (2) when a trial court precludes the

defendant from presenting a defense by erroneously excluding relevant evidence that is a vital

portion of the ease. Ray v. State, 178 S.W.3d 833, 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The exclusion of

evidence is unconstitutional only where it infringes on a weighty interest of the accused. Potier,

68 S.W.3d at 660 (citing Schefler, 523 U.S. at 308). Erroneous evidentiary rulings rarely rise to the

level of denying the fundamental constitutional rights to present a meaningful defense. Id. at 663.

The courts’ exercise of discretion is guided by competing interests. Courts should

permit great latitude for the accused to show any fact that would tend to establish ill—feeling, bias,

motive and animus upon the part of any witness testifying against him. Koe/zler v. State, 679 S.W.2d

6, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). On the other hand, the trial judge retains wide latitude to impose

reasonable limits on cross-examination to show bias based on concerns about, among other things,
harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’s safety, or interrogation that is repetitive

or only marginally relevant. Irby v. State, 327 S.W.3d 138, 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

The parties at trial entered an agreed order in limine concerning the mention of prior

contact between any of the witnesses and Child Protective Services. During his cross-examination

of D.A., DeLeon notified the court that he intended to ask questions regarding CPS involvement with

D.A.’s family, which prompted the following exchange:

[Defense counsel]: . There is direct relations to this discipline going on that ties
. . .

to a very important defensive theory that this discipline made the child scared of her
mother.

THE COURT: You haven’t shown anything yet, Counsel, so I am not going to let
anything like that in, unless you show something that has some bearing on the case.

[Defense counsel]: Well, thenwokay, a later time then. Okay. So that’s fine.

During DeLeon’s testimony, the State objected when he mentioned that the children had been

“returned from CPS custody,” and the court cautioned the witness not to blurt out CPS references.

Later, DeLeon agreed with a question that after a conversation with D.A. he felt compelled to do

something—specifically, “as an educator, it was my obligation to Contact CPS to let them know—”

at which time the State again objected and invoked the motion in limine. The following exchange

occurred during a bench conference:

[Defense counsel]: This is goes to her motive in filing the
different, Judge. This
something that happened in the past. This is talking
case. This is not talking about
about directly what her motive would be when this case was started.

[Prosecutor]: So wouldn’t the appropriate person to be—~have gone into that been
with her?

[Defense counsel]: This is my case. You can recall her.
7
 [Prosecutor]: This witness can’t testify about her motive.

[Defense counsel]: He can testify about what happened, not her motive. l can argue
based on the evidence.
it,

THE COURT: I’m sustaining the objection at this time. You can call the appropriate
person to do it.

DeLeon did not recall D.A. for further interrogation, but after the close of evidence, his attorney

made the following offer of proof:

We attempted to ask questions before the jury concerning whether [D.A.] had
informed my client, Steven DeLeon, of child abuse that she had inflicted upon her
son, [D.G.]. And that would have given her a direct motive to go into the place with
a recording [of the phone conversation between M.G. and DeLeon]. It happened
shortly before the recording was—excuse me—short1y before the recording was
discovered. And that would have prompted her to go to the authorities with that and
given her motive. And we were not allowed to ask those questions.

It is not entirely clear that DeLeon preserved this issue for appellate review. To

preserve error in the admission of evidence, a party generally must make a complaint to the

trial court with sufficient specificity that the trial court is aware of the complaint, and the court must

rule on the request. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). In order for a defendant to perfect a complaint that he

was not allowed to inquire regarding a witness or party’s bias, he must establish what subject matter

he desired to examine the witness about during the cross—examination. Koelzler, 679 S.W.2d at 9.

DeLeon has not shown that he was totally forbidden from making the inquiries. The trial court

stopped him from asking D.A. about CPS until he “show[ed] something that has some bearing on

the case.” When the State objected to defense counsel’s attempt to ask DeLeon about D.A. ’s motive

for contacting law enforcement, the trial court sustained the objection “at this time,” adding this
directive to counsel: “You can call the appropriate person to do it.” DeLeon did not recall D.A. or

any other witness on the subject.

Even if DeLeon’s offer of proof is sufficient to preserve the issue regarding CPS’s

investigation into a report of abuse, DeLeon has not demonstrated that the trial court erred. There

is no showing that evidence relating to D.A.’s abuse of D.G. had any relevance on any element of

whether DeLeon sexually assaulted M.G. It can therefore be excluded absent some other theory of

admissibility. See Tex. R. Evid. 402. Whether D.A. abused her son is not admissible impeachment

evidence about her character for tmthfiilness and is not evidence of conviction for a crime. See

Tex. R. Evid. 608(a), 609. It is a specific instance of conduct which “may not be inquired into

on cross-examination of the witness nor proved by extrinsic evidence.” See id. 608(b). Also, the

relevance to bias or motivation for DA. reporting the recording of the phone conversation between

M.G. and DeLeon is not plainly apparent. If, as DeLeon argues, D.A. wanted to distract CPS from

the report that she abused her son, it is not clear that she would serve that purpose by reporting that

her daughter was sexually abused by a man D.A. repeatedly selected as a babysitter despite her

daughter’s request that she not do so. Further, because there is no challenge to the validity of the

recorded phone conversation, D.A.’s motive or bias in supplying it to law enforcement is at best

marginally relevant to the contested issues in this case. See Irby, 327 S.W.3d at 145 (trial court can

limit marginally relevant interrogation). The content of the conversation matters much more. On

the record presented, the trial court did not err by excluding evidence of D.A.’s involvement with

CPS and did not prevent DeLeon from presenting a defense.

Harm from any wrongful exclusion of this evidence is also not apparent. The

recording was not made in retaliation for D.A.’s admission of abuse. The conversation occurred on
March 19, 2012, and D.A. made the abuse admission to DeLeon “shortly before” she discovered the

recording on M.G.’s phone on May 20, 2012. DeLeon does not dispute that he made the recorded
statement, and although M.G. may have introduced the topic of DeLeon’s discomfort with discussion

of female body parts, he initiated the discussion of unspecified events with M.G. when he wanted

to ensure that she was comfortable and that he was not hurting her. The trial court’s failure to allow

DeLeon to delve into D.A.’s potential motivations for disclosing this recording to law enforcement

did not affect the jury’s consideration of the substance of the phone call.

Further diminishing any harm, DeLeon was able to challenge D.A.’s and M.G.’s

credibility in other ways. DeLeontestif1ed and flatly denied that the assaults occurred. He presented

evidence that D.A. was biased against him because she was angered by his rejection of her romantic

overtures. He queried M.G. who said that D.A. had a “crush” on DeLeon and that he did not like

her mother in that way. DeLeon’s brother testified that D.A. was obsessed with DeLeon and that his

brother did not return her affection. He testified that D.A. would show up at the brothers’ house

unannounced while they were out and would wash their dishes and feed their dog. DeLeon himself

testified that D.A. wanted to marry him but that, while he was interested in helping her children, he

was not interested in marriage with her. All this testimony called into question D.A.’s credibility

because she testified that she and DeLeon went on a date but decided that they were better off as

friends. Further, although D.A. asserted that she did not telephone DeLeon, he confronted her with

records showing that 570 calls went from her phone to his. He confronted M.G. about the different

stories of abuse she told to different questioners. He highlighted the fact that she reported one, then

three, then four incidents, and noted inconsistencies between versions as to whether the contact hurt,

where her brother was during an incident, and \vhether the assault occurred during the day or night.

10
Further, DeLeon’s brother contradicted details of M.G.’s story about the assault at the brothers’

house. The trial court’s failure to allow him to obtain the testimony he wanted about D.A.’s alleged

abuse of her son did not prevent him from confronting witnesses and challenging their credibility.

We conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that any erroneous exclusion of evidence discussed above
did not contribute to DeLeon’s conviction or punishment. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(a).

The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we determine

whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven

beyond a reasonable doubt. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In

making this determination, we consider all evidence that the trier of fact was permitted to consider,

regardless of whether it was rightly or wrongly admitted. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778

(Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Allen v. State, 249 S.W.3d 680, 688-89 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, no pet).

We view this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. The

jury, as the trier of fact, is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given

to their testimony. Id. Therefore, we presume that the jury resolved any conflicting inferences and

issues of credibility in favor of the judgment. Id.

A person commits continuous sexual abuse of a child if, while the person is 17 years

of age or older and the victim is a child younger than fourteen years, the person commits two or more

acts of sexual abuse during a period that is 30 or more days in duration. Tex. Penal Code § 21 .02(b).

Acts of sexual abuse include indecency with a child if the person committed the offense in a

manner other than by touching the child’s breast, id. § 21.1 l(a)(l), sexual assault, id. § 22.011, and

aggravated sexual assault, id. § 22.011.

ll
 M.G.’s testimony is sufficient to support the conviction. It is undisputed that DeLeon

and M.G. were, respectively, thirty-nine and twelve years old during the summer of 2011. M.G.

testified that around June 3, 201 1, DeLeon touched her vagina. She testified that they were lying on

the floor, he asked her to remove her shorts, and he moved his fingers on her vagina. She testified

that, after he touched her for about five minutes, he kissed her neck really hard and left a mark. She

said he asked if she was okay or if he was hurting her. This testimony supports a finding that

DeLeon committed indecency with a child by contact. See id. § 21.11(a)(l). M.G. testified that,

about a month later—longer than thirty days, she said—when she and her brother were staying

overnight at DeLeon’s house, DeLeon touched her vagina. She testified that, while they were lying

on his bed, he asked her to remove her shorts and underwear, and he moved his finger around and

inside her vagina for about five minutes. He again asked her if he was hurting her. This testimony

supports a finding of indecency with a child by contact, sexual assault of a child, and aggravated

sexual assault of a child. See id. §§ 21.1 l(a)(1), 22.011(a)(2), 22.02 1 (a)(1)(B)(i). M.G. testified that

about three weeks later when she and DeLeon were talking in her 1nom’s bedroom, DeLeon pulled

down his pajama pants and told M.G. to touch his penis. She did quickly, but he grabbed her hand,

put his hand over hers, and moved their hands together up and down his penis for about five minutes.

She said he made grunting noises, then something clear and gooey came out of the top of his

penis. This testimony is sufficient to support a finding of indecency with a child by contact. See id.

§ 21.11(a)(1). The child testified that the second incident occurred more than thirty days after the

first, and that the third incident occurred about three weeks after the second. Even if the testimony

that the second incident occurred “about a mont ” after the first were insufficient to show the

requisite period, the third incident occurred about a month and three weeks after the first—a

12
combination sufficient to support a finding of two incidents of sexual abuse of a child occurring over

a period of at least thirty days. See id. § 2l.O2(b)(1).

DeLeon challenges M.G.’s credibility, pointing to inconsistencies in her statements

at various times and to contrary testimony by others. He notes her failure to make an outcry before

her mother confronted her with the recorded telephone conversation with DeLeon. He points out

that she reported one incident, then three, then four, and that her reports varied with regard to

how he touched her, whether his touch hurt, what time the offenses occurred, and where her brother

was during these events. He notes that she admitted liking to use sexual language, initiating the

sexual theme into the telephone conversation, and being overly dramatic. DeLeon also points to his

brother’s testimony that DeLeon did not share a bed with her when she stayed at their home and

that the bedrooms at that house have no doors. The jury, however, could have either rejected that

testimony or found that the offense simply occurred in a short period during which DeLeon’s brother

was not monitoring him. The jury was faced with a credibility choice and selected M.G. The record

is not such that we can intrude on the jury’s role and override its choice to credit M.G.’s testimony.

See Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778; Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 648 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We
find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

The court did not abuse its discretion by denying DeLeon’s motion for mistrial during the
State’s argument at the punishment phase.

Pennissible jury argument includes summation of the evidence, reasonable

deduction from the evidence, answer to argument of opposing counsel, and plea for law enforcement.

Allridge v. State, 762 S.W.2d 146, 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Commenting on an accused’s

failure to testify violates his state and federal constitutional privileges against self-incrimination.

13
Archie v. State, 340 S.W.3d 734, 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). A defendant’s Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-iricrimination continues during the punishment phase of trial. See Mitchell

v. United States, 526 US. 314, 325-27 (1999); Carroll v. State, 42 S.W.3d 129, 131-32 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2001).

We can reverse a trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial only for an abuse

of discretion. Archie v. State, 221 S.W.3d 695, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). To determine whether

the court’s instruction cured the prejudicial effect of the improper comment, we balance

three factors: (1) the severity of the misconduct’s prejudicial effect, (2) any curative measures,

and (3) the likelihood of the same punishment being assessed absent the misconduct. Hawkins

v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 75 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Mistrial is the appropriate remedy when the

objectionable events are so emotionally inflammatory that curative instructions are not likely to

prevent the jury from being unfairly prejudiced against the defendant. Archie, 340 S.W.3d at 739.

Only in extreme circumstances where the prejudice is incurable will a mistrial be required. Hawkins,

135 S.W.3d at 77. Where a comment leads to two plausible inferences—one of which is

perrnissible—we do not presume that the jury would necessarily choose the improper inference. See

Henson v. State, 683 S.W.2d 702, 704-05 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). A comment on the defendant’s
failure to show remorse is generally not proper if the defendant testifies at the guilt stage and

presents some defense, but does not testify at the punishment phase. Randolph v. State, 353 S.W.3d

887, 892 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The prosecutor may during the punishment phase comment on

any testimony given by the defendant in the guilt/innocence phase and, if the defendant expressly

or impliedly denies criminal responsibility during that testimony, the prosecutor may comment on

that denial. Id. at 895. A statement during punishment argument that the defendant failed to express

14
remorse might be taken as a comment on his failure to testify, but any harm from that violation

can be cured by an instruction to disregard the comment. Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385, 405-06

(Tex. Crim. App. l999)./

DeLeon contends that the trial court should have granted his motion for mistrial after

the State commented on his exercise of his right to remain silent during the sentencing phase of trial.

DeLeon testified during the guilt/innocence phase and denied committing the offense but did not take

the stand during the punishment phase. The controversy centers on the following exchange during

the State’s punishment argument:

[Prosecutor]: . . And it’s scary the way that he conducted himself, the absolute
. .

denial with what he showed, and then the complete support of his family behind him.
I do not believe 25 years, as a punishment, is appropriate in this case. [believe a

sentence of 60 years would be appropriate. [M.G.] is going to have to live with this
for the rest of her life.

And if the Defendant had taken the stand, admitted what he had done, and begged for
forgiveness, I believe the minimum sentence would be appropriate. But that’s not
what we have here.

[Defense counsel]: Your honor, could we approach the bench?

(Bench Conference)

DEFENSE MOTION FOR MISTRIAL
[Defense counsel]: 1 am going to ask for a mistrial. He did not testify at punishment.
He just said to the jury, if he got up on the stand at this phase and told you—

[Prosecutorl]: Iwas specifically referring to guilt/innocence.

[Defense counsel]: He didn’t say that. He said, if he got up here and asked for
forgiveness—this—I’m asking for a mistrial, Judge.

15
 COURT’S RULING

The Court: Well, you’re not going to get one. I am going to instruct the jury to
disregard that.

[Defense counsel]: That’s unbelievable.

(Open Court.)

The Court: Ladies and gentlemen, the last comment by the prosecutor is improper,
and you will not consider that for any purpose whatsoever.

The court then expressly denied the motion for mistrial.

As the trial court found, the argument was improper. The prosecutor’s comment

violated DeLeon’s right not to testify. See Randolph, 353 S.W.3d at 891. Even if the statement that

DeLeon did not take the stand and admit what he had done referred to DeLeon’s testimony

at guilt/innocence during which he denied wrongdoing, the statement that he did not beg for

forgiveness is equivalent to the failure to express remorse found to be an improper comment by

the court of criminal appeals. See Swallow v. State, 829 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992),

overruled in part by Randolph, 353 S.W.3d at 894-95 (distinguishing between prosecutorial

argument that defendant did not accept responsibilityma proper summation of the defendant’s

guilt/innocence testimony denying coirunitting the crime—from argument that defendant did not

express remorse—an improper comment on the failure to testify at punishment).

We conclude, however, that the trial court’s prompt, thorough, and proper instruction
to the jury to entirely disregard the prosecutor’s argument cured the harm. DeLeon received a

sentence of thirty-two years—seven years above the minimum of twenty—f1ve years permitted for the

offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child, but well below the maximum life sentence permitted.

See Tex. Penal Code § 21.02(h). Considering that the sexual abuse of the child found by the jury

16
was committed by an elementary school teacher—one entrusted with the safety and well-being of

children—we are confident that the j ury was not inflamed by the improper comment and very likely

would have assessed the same punishment absent the misconduct. Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77. The

trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for mistrial.

The sentence did not violate the constitution.

DeLeon contends that his punishment violates constitutional prohibitions against

cruel and unusual punishment because it does not have a possibility of parole. See Tex. Penal Code

§ 21.02(h); see also Tex. Gov’t Code § 508.l45(a). He notes that his minimum possible sentence

was twenty—five years in prison, while someone who murders a child could get as few as five years

in prison with a possibility of parole. See Tex. Penal Code § 12.32; Tex. Gov’t Code § 508. l45(t).

He contends that, because a child murderer sentenced to thirty-two years in prison would be

eligible for parole but he would not, his sentence is disproportionate to his crime. He contends that,

in assessing whether this categorical denial of parole to persons guilty of continuous child sexual

abuse is cruel and unusual, we should examine four factors: (1) whether there is a national

consensus against imposing the particular punishment at issue; (2) the moral culpability of the

offenders at issue in light of their crimes and characteristics; (3) the severity of the punishment; and

(4) whether the punishment serves legitimate penological goals. Meadoux v. State, 325 S.W.3d 189,

194 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). He contends that murder is a worse crime than sexual abuse and that

Texas’s sentencing parameters are inconsistent with that hierarchy. He contends that the sentence

is severe because he will be incarcerated until he is in his late sixties.

The State leans on the conclusion by the Amarillo court that the punishment structure

for continuous sexual abuse of a child is constitutional, even when a person about forty years

17
of age is sentenced to a sixty-year prison term without the possibility of parole. Glover v. State,

406 S.W.3d 343, 346-50 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013, pet. refd). The Amarillo court found a

national consensus in favor of the constitutionality of the sentencing range for this offense, primarily

based on the request by a judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals that the legislature enact tougher

punishment on those who commit continuous sexual assaults of children. See id. at 348 (citing

Dixon v. State, 201 S.W.3d 731, 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Cochran, J ., concurring)). The

Amarillo court wrote that—-—