Duvan Johnson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 284th District Court of Montgomery County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-10-00481-CR ________________ DUVAN JOHNSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10-02-01143 CR ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In February 2010, Duvan Johnson allegedly robbed and shot a female victim at The Woodlands Mall. Johnson pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced Johnson to twenty-five years in prison. In one issue, Johnson contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of three other offenses and gangrelated activity. We affirm the trial court s judgment. During sentencing, Detective Mark Denham testified that Johnson was a very strong suspect in an offense that occurred in Shenandoah and that this offense bore similarities to the February Woodlands Mall offense. Detective John Schmitt testified to 1 another offense in The Woodlands, which occurred in January 2010 and involved a similar method of operation as the February offense. Dahlia Dean testified that, in January 2010, Johnson robbed her at gunpoint and stole her vehicle. On appeal, Johnson contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony regarding these three offenses. However, the record does not indicate that Johnson objected to the complained-of testimony. For this reason, Johnson s complaint is not preserved for appellate review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); see also Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(1); Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Martinez v. State, 22 S.W.3d 504, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Over Johnson s objection, the State also admitted several photographs, which Officer Robert Tagle subsequently testified depict individuals, including Johnson, making gang-related signs and wearing gang-related clothing. Tagle testified that Johnson is a gang member, associates with other gang members, and has a gang-related tattoo. Over Johnson s objection, Tagle testified that the gang in which Johnson is involved engages in criminal activity ranging from a Class C offense to homicide, aggravated robbery, [and] aggravated assault. On appeal, Johnson contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting gang-related evidence. The record indicates that Johnson objected to some, but not all, of the gang-related evidence and did not obtain a running objection to the evidence. Under these circumstances, Johnson s complaint is not preserved for appellate review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); see also Tex. R. Evid. 2 103(a)(1); Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Rodriguez v. State, 955 S.W.2d 171, 175 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1997, no pet.). We, therefore, overrule Johnson s sole issue and affirm the trial court s judgment. AFFIRMED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on August 30, 2011 Opinion Delivered September 14, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
