Cedric Taylor v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 244th District Court of Ector County

Opinion filed September 6, 2007

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

   Nos. 11-06-00322-CR & 11-06-00323-CR

__________

  CEDRIC TAYLOR, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 244th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. C-32,377 & C-32,378

O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Cedric Taylor of aggravated robbery[1] and aggravated kidnapping.[2] The trial court assessed punishment for each offense at confinement for life. We affirm.

Background Facts

There is no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The victim testified that she was working as a taxi driver at the time of the offenses. She worked from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. six days a week. Her vehicle was equipped with a two-way radio that had a microphone attached by a coil cord. Around 1:30 a.m., appellant and another man Awaived@ her down. Appellant gave her Avague directions,@ and the two men got into her taxi.

The victim testified that it became Atense@ in the vehicle and that there was Aan extreme amount of fear all of the sudden@ in her taxi. Appellant Akind of stood up@ in the backseat and leaned over into the front seat. His face was right next to hers. The other man beat her head with his fist while appellant pulled the microphone out of the radio and told her to pull over and stop. She complied. Appellant then drove her taxi Avery erratically all over the place@ while the other man looked for her money. He took her driver=s license and wanted to know which key was for her home. The victim thought that the two men were going to kill her and that this was the last day of her life. She thought about running away but did not think she could escape the men because she had had three hip replacements and had had knee surgery.

Appellant pulled her taxi over and told the other man to drive. Appellant said, A I=m going to f--k this b---h.@ He got into the backseat with the victim, pulled his pants down to his knees, and told the victim Ato give him a blow job.@ When she told appellant that she did not want to do that, he tried to push her down. The other man wrecked the taxi, and all three of them were knocked unconscious.

The victim regained consciousness first and slipped out of the backseat. The other man told her, AB---h, you better stay right there@ and tried to wake up appellant. Appellant still had his pants down around his knees.

The victim ran to a convenience store and tried to use a pay phone to call for help. She was dazed and confused and was having trouble making the call. She saw both of the men coming toward her. They looked Amenacingly.@ She ran toward the middle of the street where the men caught up with her and began beating her in the head. A truck driver started Ablaring his horn@ and stopped to help her. The victim was then able to successfully make a 9-1-1 call.

The victim testified that, because of her injuries, she was taken to the hospital, put on life support, was in a coma for five days, and remained in the hospital for a total of fifteen days. It was over a year before she felt like her mind was functioning normally, and her memory was still not completely restored at the time of trial.

Sole Issue on Appeal

Appellant=s sole issue in both cases is that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the jury to hear a portion of the 9-1-1 tape. We disagree.

9-1-1 Tape

Appellant objected to the admission of the tape on the grounds that the tape was Anothing more than cumulative testimony@ of the victim=s testimony. The trial court overruled the objection. The tape was admitted into evidence and played for the jury. Appellant then renewed his objection on the grounds of improper bolstering. The trial court overruled the objection as untimely.

We agree with the State that appellant did not timely preserve any complaint for appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Moreover, we note that the evidence was properly admitted. Davisv. Washington, __ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 165 L. Ed. 2d 224 (2006); Cook v. State, 199 S.W.3d 495 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Further, any possible error in the admission of the tape did not constitute reversible error pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 44.2. The sole issue in each case is overruled.

This Court=s Holding

The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

September 6, 2007

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.

[1]Cause No. 11-06-00322-CR.

[2]Cause No. 11-06-00323-CR.