MoreLaw Receptionists
VOIP Phone and Virtual Receptionist Services

Call 918-582-6422 Today

This appeal involves a new punishment hearing appellant received after the Court

of Criminal Appeals found his original sentence of thirty years was improperly enhanced.

A jury trial was had on the issue. During final argument, the prosecutor argued:

I will agree with Counsel, there is no reason why you should

even consider anything less than -- I think he testified 11

years, 2 months and 10 days, because he’s done that. So, I

mean, that amount of time he’s discharged. So somewhere

between there and 20 years is the question I would say. And

he says y’all are the parole board. There is a parole board.

Will they let him out? I don’t know. I hope not. If I have any

say, they won’t. I don’t think they should. But they legally have

to consider letting him out after he served a flat 10 years, if

you give him 20. He’s got 11. So they’re going to have to take

a vote, they are going to have to make a decision. Will they

vote to let him out? They’re going to look at all of his history,

they’re going to look at all those certificates he has, they’ll look

at his education. They’ll also look at those disciplinary records,

and I’ll assure you that there’s probably a little different spin

to them than his. And they’ll make a decision. Will it be based

on just purely whether he should stay in prison or not? No,

because they have to consider their crowding situation and

whether they need that cell. So even though they may think

he ought to stay, they may need the bed and they may let him

out anyway. But the odds are in his favor. And if the parole

board doesn’t think you ought to get out, you ought not to get

out. But more importantly in that is, if he gets anything -- 11

years or something like that, if he has discharged whatever

sentence he’s got, he’s off paper, he doesn’t have any

supervision . . . .

Appellant, however, uttered no objection to the argument though it forms the basis of his

sole issue here.

Preservation of error for review is a systemic requirement. Blackshear v. State,

385 S.W.3d 589, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Guzman v. State, No. 03-13-00131-CR,

2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4840, at *42 (Tex. App.—Austin May 13, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem.

3

op., not designated for publication). To preserve error regarding improper jury argument,

the defendant must contemporaneously object to the argument, request an instruction

that it be disregarded if the objection is sustained, and move for a mistrial if an instruction

to disregard is given. Guzman, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4840, at *42–43. Failing to object

forfeits his right to complain on appeal. Id. It matters not that he may suggest the

argument so infected the trial with unfairness that it resulted in a denial of due process; a

contemporaneous objection is still required. Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1996); Pena v. State, No. 14-13-00102-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6487, at

*3–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 17, 2014, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not

designated for publication). Because appellant did not object below, he failed to preserve

the complaint raised now. See Guzman, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4840 at *43 (holding that

the appellant needed to object to the prosecutor’s comments about credit for time served,

good conduct time or parole in order to preserve the complaint for appellate review).

Accordingly, we overrule the sole issue before us and affirm the judgment of the

trial court.