Consequently, we are "required to determine 'whether the evidence embraces each essential element of the offense charged.'" Flores-Alonzo v. State, 460 S.W.3d 197, 203 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, no pet.) (quoting Rohr v. State, No. 08-12-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *2 (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.) (not designated for publication)). "The failure to comply with [Article 1.15] does not constitute a federal constitutional violation."
And the exclusion of cumulative evidence is generally not an abuse of discretion. See Lopez, 18 S.W.3d at 222; Ho, 171 S.W.3d at 304 (trial court did not err in excluding out-of-court confrontation between witnesses and defendant's family when the jury was already aware of animosity between the two); Rohr v. State, No. 08-12-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *8 (Tex.App.--El Paso Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.)(not designated for publication)(claimed limitation on cross-examination not error when fact finder was "fully aware of Appellant's defensive theory"). Appellant focuses here, as he did below, on the final paragraph of the demand letter which arguably threatens Appellant with deportation.
"The entry of a valid guilty plea has the effect of admitting all material facts alleged in the formal criminal charge." Flores-Alonzo v. State, 460 S.W.3d 197, 203 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, no pet.) (quoting Rohr v. State, No. 08-12-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.)). "With one exception not applicable here, a plea of nolo contendere or 'no contest' has the same legal effect as a guilty plea." Id. (quoting Rohr, 2014 WL 4438828, at *1); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 27.02(5) (West 2006).
In a unitary trial, all of the evidence admitted may both substantiate the defendant's plea and allow the trial court to determine the proper sentence. Flores-Alonzo v. State, 460 S.W.3d 197, 203 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, no pet.) (citing Rohr v. State, No. 08-12-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.) (not designated for publication)). Further, when a PSI report is prepared, the trial court may take judicial notice of unobjected-to facts contained within the PSI report.
; Rohr v. State, No. 08-12-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *3 (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.) (not designated for publication) ("The right of an accused to cross-examine a testifying state's witness includes the right to impeach the witness with relevant evidence that might reflect bias, interest, prejudice, inconsistent statements, traits of character affecting credibility, or evidence that might go to any impairment or disability affecting the witness's credibility.").
Accordingly, we review a trial court's ruling limiting the cross-examination of a witness under an abuse of discretion standard. Billodeau v. State, 277 S.W.3d 34, 39 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009); Rohr v. State, No. 08-12-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *3 (Tex.App.--El Paso, Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.)(not designated for publication). Generally, the right to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses under the Sixth Amendment does not conflict with the corresponding rights under state evidentiary rules. United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 316, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998); Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 660-62 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002).
“When a defendant waives his right to a jury trial and enters a no contest plea on a non-capital offense, the proceeding is no longer bifurcated with separate guilt-innocence and punishment phases.” Rohr v. State, No. 08–12–00219–CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *1 (Tex.App.—El Paso Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.) (citing Gomez v. State, 399 S.W.3d 604, 606 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2013, pet. ref'd) ); Saldana v. State, 150 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex.App.—Austin 2004, no pet.).