Brooks v. State, 357 S.W.3d 777

Appellant Dennis Brooks, Jr. was indicted for sexual assault of a child and convicted by a jury; the trial court imposed an automatic life sentence under 12.42(c)(2) based on a prior Kansas conviction; the State relied on multiple witnesses, including the complainant, her mother, a doctor, and an inmate (McGuire) who testified about appellant’s statements; the Kansas conviction (1992) qualifies under 12.42(c)(2) as an enumerated prior offense, and the Kansas statute’s elements were found substantially similar to indecency with a child for enhancement purposes; appellant raises nine issues, including evidentiary and ineffective-assistance challenges; the court addresses issues in an order-of-analysis that includes uncorroborated inmate testimony and the preservation of error; the court finds McGuire’s testimony corroborated by other evidence and holds certain errors harmless; the court affirms the judgment of conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting prior conviction evidence during guilt phase was error	Brooks argues admission of prior Kansas conviction was improper	State contends admission was permissible and not prejudicial	Issue overruled; no preserved error or harmless under record
Whether Brooks received ineffective assistance for failing to call rebuttal witnesses	Brooks claims witnesses could have rebutted McGuire’s testimony	State argues no showing witnesses were available or would help	Issue overruled; not demonstrated prejudice
Whether the trial court erred by not giving an article 38.075 instruction about uncorroborated inmate testimony	Court should have instructed sua sponte that inmate testimony requires corroboration	Omission was harmless due to corroboration from other evidence	Issue overruled; om iss not egregiously harmful given corroboration
Whether the Kansas conviction is substantially similar to a Texas enhancement offense under 12.42(c)(2)	Kansas offense shares elements with indecency with a child	Elements are not substantially similar	Issue overruled; Kansas offense substantially similar to indecency with a child for enhancement

Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (trial court must instruct on corroboration; harms standard applied)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984) (harm analysis for trial error under Almanza)
Freeman v. State, 352 S.W.3d 77 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (harmless error analysis for missing 38.075 instruction)
Prudholm v. State, 333 S.W.3d 590 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (substantial similarity standard for 12.42(c)(2) comparisons)
Warren v. State, 353 S.W.3d 490 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (high degree of similarity for interstate offenses; informs substantial similarity)
Sledge v. State, 953 S.W.2d 253 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (on-date proof and admissibility principles under similar issues)