No. 13-01-810-CR.
June 12, 2003. Do not publish.
On appeal from the 329th District Court of Wharton County, Texas.
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Castillo.
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ, Justice
Appellant, Clarence Branch, Jr., was found guilty of murder. The trial court assessed his punishment at fifty-five years in prison. By one issue, Branch contends the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence over his objection. We affirm. As this is a memorandum opinion not designated for publication, and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here. See Tex.R.App.P. 47.4.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court's ruling to admit testimony is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 153-54 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). It is a clear abuse of discretion where the record indicates the trial court acted without reference to any guiding principles or rules, such that its decision is arbitrary or unreasonable. State v. Patrick, 990 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.). II. ANALYSIS
By his sole issue, Branch contends the trial court erred in denying his objection to Officer Coleman's testimony. Hearsay is defined as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Tex.R.Evid. 801(d). It is well established that when the hearsay evidence relates to facts that are sufficiently proved by other and competent evidence, the admission of the hearsay evidence objected to is harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Huff v. State, 560 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Mendoza v. State, 69 S.W.3d 628, 633 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, pet. ref'd). Assuming, without deciding, that Officer Coleman's testimony was inadmissible hearsay, error, if any, was harmless. In this instance, Officer Coleman testified to what a witness, Stephanie Caesar, told him at the police station. However, Caesar personally testified to each fact established by Officer Coleman's testimony. Branch did not object to Caesar's testimony. Thus, we find any error in admitting Officer Coleman's testimony harmless. See Huff, 560 S.W.2d at 654; Mendoza, 69 S.W.3d at 633. Appellant's sole issue is overruled. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.