The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Sale v. State, No. 05-16-00360-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas Jun. 9, 2017) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court.

The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Sale v. State, No. 05-16-00360 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jun. 9, 2017) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court.

But this did not inform the complainant of the time, place, and contents of the statements, as appellant was required to do in order to question her about those statements. See, e.g., Maya v. State, No. 05-14-00486-CR, 2015 WL 4627218, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 4, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("[T]here are three requirements to establish the proper predicate or foundation for impeachment testimony: (1) identification (time and place and person to whom the statement was made); (2) the contents of such statement; and (3) the witness must be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny such statement."); see also Flowers v. State, 438 S.W.3d 96, 103 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref'd); Sale v. State, No. 05-16-00360-CR, 2017 WL 2492613, at *3 (Tex. App—Dallas June 9, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designed for publication). Appellant simply did not establish the necessary predicate, nor does he not cite a passage in the record that shows he did.