Everett Lott v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 4 of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-02-00174-CR

Everett D. LOTT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 4, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 782947

Honorable Sarah Garrahan-Moulder, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 26, 2003

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Everett D. Lott, appeals his conviction for assault causing bodily injury. In two points of error, Lott argues the trial court erred by denying his requested instructions to the jury on the law of self-defense and necessity. Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in this memorandum opinion under Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Self-defense and necessity are justification defenses. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 9.02, 9.22, 9.31 (Vernon 1994 & Supp. 2002). With all justification defenses, in order to be entitled to a charge justifying his conduct, the defendant must do two things: (1) essentially admit committing the conduct giving rise to the indictment; and (2) offer evidence as to why the conduct was justified under one or more reasons described in chapter nine of the penal code. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 9.01-.63 (Vernon 1994 & Supp. 2002); Young v. State, 991 S.W.2d 835, 838-39 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Gilmore v. State, 44 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2001, pet. ref'd); McGarity v. State, 5 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.). The record evidence supports a finding that Lott did not admit committing any offense alleged against him in the information. Consequently, Lott was not entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense or necessity. See Young, 991 S.W.2d at 838-39; McGarity, 5 S.W.3d at 227; Gilmore, 44 S.W.3d at 97.

The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

PAUL W. GREEN,

JUSTICE

DO NOT PUBLISH