Cody Jackson appeals his aggravated robbery convictions. Appellant pled guilty before a jury, and the jury sentenced him to eighteen years’ confinement and a $1300 fine in cause number 05-11-00799-CR and fifteen years’ confinement and a $1300 fine in cause numbers 05-11-00800- CR, 05-11-00801-CR, and 05-11-00802-CR. In a single issue, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of appellant’s tattoos. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to four aggravated robberies and elected to have a jury set punishment. At the punishment hearing, the State offered into evidence photographs of appellant’s body depicting his tattoos. Appellant’s counsel objected that the pictures of appellant’s tattoos had “absolutely no relevant value” and were more unfairly prejudicial than probative. Outside the presence of the jury, the prosecutor questioned appellant about his tattoos. Appellant testified the tattoo of a cross on his left forearm “resembles my religious belief.” The tattoo of a “C” on his wrist was his initial, and the crown above the “C” was there because appellant “figured it looked nice.” On his arm appellant had a tattoo of an angel with two lions and a man kneeling and praying “like a resemblance of Daniel in the lion’s den.” Appellant testified a tattoo on the inside of his arm was his mother’s name. Another tattoo depicted “a cross with the Reaper,” which appellant described as “a caretaker of death.” Appellant testified it was not “a sound decision” to get the Reaper tattoo, and he wished he could “take it off.” In response to the prosecutor’s questions, appellant testified the word “codeine” at the bottom of the Reaper’s feet was his nickname but referred to the drug codeine, and the Reaper was pouring beer on the codeine. Beneath the word codeine the tattoo said “take a sip.” Appellant’s tattoo of a sphinx “resembles knowledge.” The trial court overruled appellant’s objection, stating “it goes to character.”

In his sole issue, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence of his tattoos. A ruling admitting or excluding evidence is subject to an abuse of discretion review. Cameron v. State, 241 S.W.3d 15, 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Under the abuse of discretion standard, the appellate court must uphold the trial court’s ruling so long as it is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Robbins v. State, 88 S.W.3d 256, 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see also Khoshayand v. State, 179 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.). Texas rule of evidence 401 defines “relevance” as having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable. Tex. R. Evid. 401. Even if evidence is relevant, a trial court may exclude it if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the needless presentation of cumulative, misleading, confusing, or unfairly prejudicial evidence. Tex. R. Evid. 403. Article 37.07, section 3(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs the admissibility of evidence during the punishment phase of a noncapital trial and provides evidence may be offered by the State and defendant “as to any matter the court deems relevant” including evidence of reputation, character or the circumstances of the offense. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07, § 3(a)(1) (West Supp. 2012).

Here, appellant pled guilty before the jury but sought to be put on community supervision. When a defendant applies for community supervision, the trial court may reasonably deem any character trait that pertains to the defendant’s suitability for community supervision to be a relevant matter for the sentencer to consider. Sims v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). When the jury assesses punishment, it must be able to tailor the sentence to the particular defendant, and relevance is simply “a question of what is helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Id. We agree the introduction of appellant’s testimony and the photographs of appellant’s tattoos was relevant to the jury’s determination of appellant’s suitability for community supervision. See id. Two of the tattoos indicated appellant’s religious beliefs, and one “resemble[d] knowledge.” Another tattoo depicted “a caretaker of death” pouring down beer on appellant’s nickname, “codeine,” with the words “take a sip” beneath. This evidence of images appellant chose to permanently tattoo on his body was helpful to the jury in determining appellant’s appropriate sentence. See id. Whenever an individual decides to tattoo his body, he is making a permanent statement of his beliefs. Further, nothing in the tattoos was so unfairly prejudicial that its exclusion was required. The evidence showed the tattoos depicted religious beliefs and the name of appellant’s mother, consistent with appellant’s theory that he was suitable for community supervision. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the tattoos. See id.; Cameron, 241 S.W.3d at 19. We overrule appellant’s sole issue.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47

110799F.U05

S

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT