Dakota Layne Mitchell v. the State of Texas, 02-19-00267-CR

Complainant began dating Dakota Mitchell when she was 12 and he was 17; she testified to multiple sexual acts on different dates, including digital penetration (aggravated sexual assault) and several indecency acts.
Original indictment (filed March 10, 2017) charged aggravated sexual assault and indecency counts; a direct reindictment filed May 10, 2019 added Count Three (an additional indecency allegation) and replaced a pseudonym with the complainant’s name.
Mitchell was on bond; the reindictment was filed May 10, Mitchell’s counsel received a copy May 13, moved for continuance May 15, and trial began May 21.
At a pretrial hearing the court limited outcry testimony and allowed cross-examination of the complainant; the court denied the continuance.
Jury convicted Mitchell of one count of aggravated sexual assault (five-year sentence) and three counts of indecency with a child (two-year sentences), all concurrent; Mitchell appealed raising three issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance after direct reindictment	State: reindictment filed May 10; Article 27.11 ten‑day period ran from filing so defendant had adequate notice and time	Mitchell: received copy less than 10 days before trial and lacked time to prepare for the newly added Count Three and to interview DA office witnesses	Court: No abuse of discretion; Article 27.11 ran from filing date so defendant received ten days and offered no specific prejudice
Venue for Count Three	State: venue presumed because defendant did not dispute it at trial	Mitchell: argued on appeal the State failed to prove venue for Count Three in Tarrant County	Court: Venue presumed under Rule 44.2(c)(1) because venue was not contested at trial and the record does not affirmatively negate venue
Confrontation Clause — SANE supervisor testimony	State: introduced SANE report as business record; supervisor sponsored the report	Mitchell: complained on appeal that admitting supervisor’s testimony about SANE exam violated Sixth Amendment right to confront the examiner	Court: Complaint not preserved — no Sixth Amendment objection at trial and defendant said “No objection” when report offered; issue waived

Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (motion for continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Gallo v. State, 239 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (bare assertion of unprepared counsel does not automatically show prejudice)
Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (prejudice required to show continuance abuse when counsel is unprepared)
Oliver v. State, 646 S.W.2d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (Article 27.11 ten‑day rule applies when defendant invokes right)
Trevino v. State, 900 S.W.2d 815 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi — Edinburg 1995) (when no formal service, ten‑day period runs from filing date)
Holdridge v. State, 707 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (record must affirmatively negate venue to overcome presumption)
Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (venue is presumed proven unless disputed at trial or record shows contrary)
Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Confrontation Clause complaints must be raised at trial to be preserved on appeal)