Jeremy William Amero v. State, 07-17-00077-CR

Background

Appellant Jeremy William Amero pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; judge assessed punishment (two concurrent 10-year terms).
During punishment hearings the State introduced evidence of an extraneous incident on June 8–9, 2016 (pointing a gun at another person and at himself) and other background (volatile relationship, substance/steroid abuse, mental-health/anger issues).
The State filed Article 37.07 notices (including an investigative report number) but its notice did not specify the exact date or victim of the June incident.
Defense lodged limited objections at trial: an early objection to extraneous evidence was withdrawn; a later objection to drug-related testimony was sustained; many witnesses testified about the June incident without repeated 37.07 objections by defense.
On appeal (Cause Nos. 07-17-00077-CR & 07-17-00078-CR), appellant challenged admission of extraneous-offense evidence for lack of proper Article 37.07 notice and for lack of a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt finding by the factfinder. The State argued waiver and harmlessness and urged affirmance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of Article 37.07 notice for June 8–9, 2016 extraneous offense	Appellant: State failed to provide specific date/victim as Article 37.07(3)(g) requires, so admission was improper	State: Notices and an investigative report number were provided; defense had the report electronically; objections were withdrawn or not timely/renewed; any deficiency was harmless (no bad faith, no unfair surprise)	Court (per State brief): No reversible error — appellant waived review of notice complaint and any omission was harmless
Trial court’s failure to make a finding that extraneous offenses were proven beyond a reasonable doubt before considering them at punishment	Appellant: Judge did not make required Article 37.07 threshold findings on extraneous acts (June incident, relationship, drugs, mental health)	State: Appellant failed to object at trial; when judge is the factfinder, appellate sufficiency review for extraneous offenses is treated as abuse-of-discretion on admission; record shows judge followed Article 37.07 procedures	Court (per State brief): Complaint waived; no abuse of discretion shown; Huizar (jury instruction) inapplicable because judge, not jury, was factfinder
Preservation of error via timely and specific objections	Appellant: Preserved errors via trial objections	State: Objections were withdrawn, not pursued to adverse rulings, or not timely repeated—thus issues waived under Tex. R. App. P. 33.1	Court (per State brief): Waiver rules apply; appellant failed to preserve appellate review
Standard of review for extraneous-offense evidence at punishment	Appellant: (implied) erroneous admission warrants reversal	State: Abuse-of-discretion standard applies to judge’s admission rulings; non-constitutional notice defects are reviewed for harm under Rule 44.2(b)	Court (per State brief): Abuse-of-discretion standard; any statutory notice defect non-constitutional and harmless here

Key Cases Cited

Corley v. State, 987 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999) (discusses trial-court factfinder’s reduced prejudice risk from extraneous-offense evidence)
Huizar v. State, 12 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (jury at punishment must be instructed on Article 37.07 burden of proof)
Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (abuse-of-discretion review for admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence)
Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (standard for reviewing trial-court evidentiary rulings)
Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard reiterated)
Palomo v. State, 352 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (limitations on appellate review of sufficiency of extraneous-offense proof at punishment)
Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (preservation requirement for appellate review of evidentiary complaints)
Thompson v. State, 4 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (treating extraneous-offense sufficiency claims as admission challenges)
Luna v. State, 301 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009) (notice deficiency harmless where defendant received report and no prosecutorial bad faith)
Roethel v. State, 80 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (nonconstitutional notice errors reviewed for harm under Rule 44.2(b))