Rodney Keith Long v. State ( 1996 )

Long-RK v. State

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-96-060-CR

     RODNEY KEITH LONG,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                              Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court # 30,149

                                                                                                    

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                    

      On March 20, 1996, we received a copy of Rodney Long's notice of appeal and the trial court clerk's information form regarding his appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1). According to these sources, Long pled guilty to "Forgery by Passing", and his probation was continued with the added requirement that he enter a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility. On June 6, 1996, he filed a motion to withdraw his notice of appeal and asks that we dismiss his appeal.

      In the relevant portion, Rule 59 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states:

(b) Criminal Cases. The appeal may be dismissed if the appellant withdraws his notice of appeal at any time prior to the decision of the appellate court. The withdrawal shall be in writing signed by the appellant and his counsel and filed in duplicate with the clerk of the court of appeals in which the appeal is pending . . . . Notice of the dismissal shall be sent to the clerk of the trial court in which notice of appeal was filed.

Id. 59(b).

      Long and his attorney have both signed the motion, as required by the rule. Id. We have not issued a decision in this appeal. Thus, his notice of appeal is withdrawn.

      Long's appeal is dismissed. Id.

                                                                               PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

            Justice Cummings, and

            Justice Vance

Dismissed on appellant's motion

Opinion delivered and filed June 12, 1996

Do not publish

dentifying information.  Officer Bolton placed the evidence in the evidence locker.  It remained in the evidence locker until the time of trial.  Officer Bolton identified State’s Exhibit 1 at trial.  Tagging an item of physical evidence at the time of its seizure and then identifying it at trial based upon the tag is sufficient for admission barring any showing by the defendant of tampering or alteration.  Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1, 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). There is no evidence of tampering with State’s Exhibit 1.  The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence.  We overrule the first issue.

DNA Testimony and State’s Exhibits 8-16

            Dr. Matthew Cox testified that he examined S.M. and collected specimens and samples from her.  Dr. Cox submitted each sample and specimen in a standardized kit.  Dr Cox placed the evidence in a box, sealed the box, and labeled it with identifying information.  The evidence was placed in a lock box at Parkland Hospital.  The contents of the kit were marked as State’s Exhibits 8-16, and State’s Exhibit 18.  Dr. Cox identified these exhibits at trial.

            Amanda Lehrmann, a forensic biologist at Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, testified that the key to the lock box at Parkland Hospital is kept in the laboratory and accessed only by biology personnel or direct supervisors.  She testified that evidence is removed from the lock box three times a week and taken to the laboratory. Lehrmann testified that when she received the kit, it was intact and sealed. Lehrmann said that SWIF labeled each piece of evidence and sealed the evidence after testing.  Lehrmann supervised Daniel Tang, who was in training, in testing the evidence.  Both Lehrmann and Tang signed the report detailing the evidence and results of the testing. After all testing is complete, the evidence is sealed and returned to the investigating agency.  Lehrmann identified the sexual assault kit and the samples contained in the kit at trial and testified that the evidence had not been tampered with in any way.

            Courtney Ferreira, a biologist and DNA analyst at SWIF, testified that her department receives the DNA samples to be tested from the serology department of SWIF.  The samples are labeled with identifying information for the particular case.  Ferreira testified that Ismael Parra, who was in training, performed the DNA analysis on the samples.  Ferriera checked his work and approved his findings.  Both Ferreira and Parra signed the report containing the results of the DNA analysis.  Lehrmann, Tang, Ferriera, and Parra all testified at trial concerning the evidence in question.

            There is no evidence of tampering with State’s Exhibits 8 through 16 and 18.  The evidence was properly identified at trial, and the State showed the beginning and the end of the chain of custody.  The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence.  We overrule issues two and four.

State’s Exhibits 4, 5, and 6

            State’s Exhibit 4 is a buccal swab from Sharp’s left cheek, State’s Exhibit 5 is a sample from his right cheek, and State’s Exhibit 6 is an envelope in which the samples were placed.  Sergeant Rodney Rickman collected the samples, packaged each sample separately in an envelope, and labeled and sealed both samples.  Detective Mark Mahoney took the two envelopes and placed them in a larger envelope, State’s Exhibit 6.  Detective Mahoney sealed and labeled State’s Exhibit 6 and turned it over to Lieutenant Ron Roark for delivery to SWIF.

            Lehrmann testified that the exhibits were received at SWIF and labeled with identifying information.  The DNA samples were heat sealed and placed in the freezer for DNA testing.

            Officer Rickman identified the exhibits at trial, and stated that they had not been tampered with in any way.  The trial court did not err in admitting State’s Exhibits 4, 5, and 6. We overrule the third issue.

Conclusion

            We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

 

 

 

                                                                        AL SCOGGINS

                                                                        Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Davis, and

            Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed August 31, 2011

Do not publish

[CRPM]

 

 

---

[1] S.M. identified “stuff” as the male genitalia and sex organ.