Brian Demon Ward v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-07-00146-CR

Brian Demon Ward,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 06-02558-CRF-85

MEMORANDUM Opinion

Brian Demon Ward was convicted of possession with the intent to deliver cocaine, enhanced, and sentenced to 19 years in prison.

In his sole issue, Ward contends the trial court erred in admitting testimonial statements in violation of the United States Constitution[1] as interpreted by Crawford v. Washington.[2] The relevant facts in this case and the applicable law, are indistinguishable from the relevant facts and applicable law in Curry v. State in the resolution of the third issue under the heading Testimonial Statements. [3] Curry v. State, 228 S.W.3d 292, 298-299 (Tex. App. Waco 2007, pet. ref d). For the reasons stated therein, Appellant s only issue is overruled, and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed January 9, 2008

Do not publish

[CR25]

[1] Ward also mentions in the title of his issue that the admission of evidence violates the Texas Constitution. However, in the body of his argument, he makes no distinction between his rights under the Texas Constitution and his rights under the United States Constitution. We make no distinction either. See Luquis v. State, 72 S.W.3d 355, 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ("Appellant makes no distinction between his rights under the Texas and federal constitutions. Therefore we will treat them as being the same in this context."); Smith v. State, 898 S.W.2d 838, 847 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) ("Appellant proffers no argument or authority of how the protection offered by the Texas Constitution differs from the protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution [citations omitted]. We are not inclined to make appellant's arguments for him."); Johnson v. State, 853 S.W.2d 527, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) ("We decline to pursue appellant's Texas Constitutional arguments for him.").

[2] 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004).

[3] This case is, factually, a companion case to Curry. The confidential informant is the same, the technique (surveillance video) is the same, and the location of the transaction is the same. The arrests in the respective cases also took place on the same day. Curry was named during the trial as a previous buy during testimony. Appellant s brief at 3 n.1.