Bob Harold Leach v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 402nd Judicial District Court of Wood County
Annotate this CaseIn The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-03-00211-CR
______________________________
BOB HAROLD LEACH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court
Wood County, Texas
Trial Court No. 17,101-2002
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Bob Harold Leach pled guilty to the offense of aggravated kidnapping and asked the trial court to assess punishment. Leach had no negotiated plea agreement with the State. The trial court assessed Leach's punishment at imprisonment for life. In a single issue on appeal, Leach contends the State failed to provide adequate notice of its intent to introduce evidence of an extraneous crime or bad act, and, accordingly, the trial court erred by admitting evidence of that extraneous offense in violation of Article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07 (Vernon Supp. 2004). Because Leach failed to request such notice, he was not entitled to it. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Article 37.07, Section 3(g) states that a request is necessary:
On timely request of the defendant, notice of intent to introduce evidence under this article shall be given in the same manner required under Rule 404(b), Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence. If the attorney representing the state intends to introduce an extraneous crime or bad act that has not resulted in a final conviction in a court of record or a probated or suspended sentence, notice of that intent is reasonable only if the notice includes the date on which and the county in which the alleged crime or bad act occurred and the name of the alleged victim of the crime or bad act. The requirement under this subsection that the attorney representing the state give notice applies only if the defendant makes a timely request to the attorney representing the state for the notice.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07, 3(g) (emphasis added).
The record in this case contains no evidence Leach sent a self-executing letter to the State requesting advance notice, pursuant to Article 37.07, of the State's intent to introduce extraneous offense evidence at trial. Nor is there any evidence in the record that Leach made such a "timely request" of the State. As such, the State had no duty to provide notice under Article 37.07 of the State's intent to introduce evidence of an extraneous offense. See Hartson v. State, 59 S.W.3d 780, 787 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2001, no pet.). Absent such an obligation, the defendant cannot claim error on appeal regarding the adequacy of any voluntary Article 37.07 notification provided by the State.
We overrule Leach's sole point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: July 15, 2004
Date Decided: July 21, 2004
Do Not Publish
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.