BOBBY JACK SINGLETON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

ResetAA Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

BOBBY JACK SINGLETON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 05–09–01069–CR

    Decided: January 24, 2012

Before Justices Moseley, FitzGerald, and Richter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Moseley

A jury convicted appellant Bobby Jack Singleton of aggravated assault and sentenced him to 75 years' confinement.   Bringing a single issue on appeal, Singleton asserts the trial court erred by admitting an audio CD purportedly containing excerpts of Singleton's telephone conversations during his incarceration prior to trial;  Singleton claims the State did not properly authenticate the recordings.   The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties;  thus, we do not recite them here in detail.   Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion.  Tex.R.App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4.   We overrule Singleton's single issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Darrell Doty, an investigator for the District Attorney's office, testified that one of his job duties is to record jailhouse phone calls using the Adult Identification System (“AIS”), a computer system in the District Attorney's office.   Information about each inmate in the Dallas jail is input into the AIS and each inmate is assigned an AIS number.   Doty was trained to search the system for an inmate's AIS number and pull an inmate's phone calls based on his AIS number.   Doty testified he used the AIS to pull all telephone records for Bobby Singleton while Singleton was in jail.   At trial, Doty identified six CDs he created containing Singleton's phone calls.   Additionally, Doty identified one CD he created containing excerpts from the six CDs;  the single CD was admitted and played for the jury.1

In addition to Doty's testimony, Singleton himself testified that at least one of the calls played to the jury was of a conversation he had with his half-sister.

Based on Singleton's own testimony as well as Doty's testimony, we conclude the trial court acted within the zone of reasonable disagreement and did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the CD into evidence.   See Angleton v. State, 971 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Tex.Crim.App.1998);  White v. State, 2010 WL 1242040, at *5–6 (Tex.App.—Dallas Apr. 1, 2010, pet. struck) (not designated for publication).   We overrule Singleton's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Michael Robinson, a witness to the assault, also testified at trial and identified Singleton's voice on the CD. Singleton claims Robinson's identification was tainted because, before Robinson listened to the recordings, the State told Robinson that the recordings were of Singleton's phone calls.   We need not determine whether Robinson's identification was tainted because Doty's testimony sufficiently authenticated the recorded calls..  FN1. Michael Robinson, a witness to the assault, also testified at trial and identified Singleton's voice on the CD. Singleton claims Robinson's identification was tainted because, before Robinson listened to the recordings, the State told Robinson that the recordings were of Singleton's phone calls.   We need not determine whether Robinson's identification was tainted because Doty's testimony sufficiently authenticated the recorded calls.

JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE

FindLaw Career Center

    Select a Job Title


      Post a Job  |  Careers Home

    View More