Coffield, Anthony v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County

Affirmed and Opinion filed  October 17, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-01-00959-CR

_______________

ANTHONY COFFIELD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

______________________________________________

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris  County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 851,125

______________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Anthony Coffield appeals a conviction for burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit a theft[1] on the grounds that: (1) the prosecutor asked an improper voir dire question; (2) the trial court erred by overruling appellant s challenge for cause because the venire person was biased as a matter of law and fact; and (3) the prosecutor engaged in improper jury argument. We affirm.

Voir Dire Question

Appellant s first issue argues that a hypothetical voir dire question asked by the prosecutor was factually specific to this case and thereby impermissibly pre-committed the jury to convict appellant. However, to preserve a complaint for appellate review, an appellant must make a timely objection. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). In this case, because appellant failed to object to the prosecutor s voir dire question, this complaint presents nothing for our review. See Draughon v. State, 831 S.W.2d 331, 336-37 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Accordingly, his first issue is overruled.

Challenge for Cause

Appellant s second and third issues contend that the trial court erred in overruling appellant s challenge for cause of venire person number 20 who was biased against appellant as a matter of law and fact in that he was unable to follow the law regarding appellant s Fifth Amendment right not to testify. However, to preserve a complaint for appellate review, a defendant must receive an adverse ruling on his objection. See, e.g., Ramirez v. State, 815 S.W.2d 636, 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In this case, the record affirmatively reflects that appellant s challenge for cause to venire person number 20 was sustained:

COUNSEL: 14, 35, 20.

THE COURT: Now let me go back. 25 will be denied. 52 will be granted. 56 will be granted. And I need to rule on 20. It will be denied.

COUNSEL: He just said he would require the defendant to testify. That s why I

THE COURT: He indicated to me he would probably. He said it would be a problem, but he could follow the law. I ll come back to that one. 26 is granted. 53 will be denied. So that means we ve got 14, 20, 26, 29, 35, 52, 55, 56, and 59. 14 and 20 will be granted.

(emphasis added). The trial court s strike list also shows that venire member number 20 was one of the persons stricken for cause from the jury list. Because appellant s second and third issues fail to show that his challenge for cause was denied by the trial court, they present nothing for our review and are overruled.

Jury Argument

Appellant s fourth issue contends that the prosecutor engaged in improper jury argument by arguing outside the evidence during her jury summation. Again, however, because appellant failed to object to this argument at trial, his complaint presents nothing for our review. See Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918, 926-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Accordingly, his fourth issue is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/ Richard H. Edelman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed October 17, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Seymore, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

[1] A jury found appellant guilty, and the court sentenced him to forty years confinement.