Jimmy Jarrett v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 222nd District Court of Deaf Smith County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 07-08-0277-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C JULY 28, 2009 ______________________________ JIMMY JARRETT, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE 222ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY; NO. CR-08A-003; HONORABLE ROLAND SAUL, JUDGE _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jimmy Jarrett, was convicted by a jury of felony driving while intoxicated, enhanced,1 and sentenced to confinement for eighty years. Appellant contends the trial 1 The indictm ent alleged two prior DW I convictions, m aking the prim ary offense a felony of the third degree. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.09(b)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2008). The indictm ent also alleged five prior felony convictions, m aking the offense punishable by im prisonm ent for any term of not m ore than 99 years or less than 25 years. See § 12.42(d). court erred when it: 1) denied him the right to assistance of counsel by precluding counsel from questioning the jury panel concerning certain matters or issues; and 2) denied him the right to confront his accusers by permitting a witness for the State to testify to the contents of documents admitted into evidence. We affirm. I. Voir Dire The constitutionally guaranteed right to assistance of counsel encompasses the right to question prospective jurors, during the jury selection process, as to any issue relevant to the intelligent and effective exercise of peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. McCarter v. State, 837 S.W.2d 117, 119 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Ratliff v. State, 690 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985). This right, however, must coexist and be harmonized with the trial court s interest in the efficient administration of justice through the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the voir dire process. Id. Appellant contends he was denied the right to assistance of counsel because the trial court precluded him from questioning prospective jurors on the issues of a defendant s right to remain silent, the presumption of innocence, and the State s burden of proof. Although Appellant attempts to frame this issue as a constitutional one based upon a deprivation of an accused s right to counsel, the gravamen of his complaint is that the trial court precluded counsel from fully questioning prospective jurors concerning how their verdict would be influenced if the defense did nothing. After exchanging a convoluted 2 dialog with several prospective jurors2 concerning whether they could afford Appellant his full constitutional rights, Appellant s counsel moved to strike one juror, moved for a mistrial due to a contaminated jury pool, and objected to the State s additional voir dire of one juror. Each request was denied by the trial court. At that point, the trial court stated, All right. [Defense counsel] let s move on to something else. The trial court never precluded Appellant s counsel from asking any specific question or exploring any area of the law and counsel never made an objection based upon the trial court s preclusion of questioning as to any specific issue. To preserve error on appeal, a party must make a timely, specific objection or motion to the trial court that states the grounds for the ruling sought with sufficient specificity and complies with the rules of evidence and procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). If an argument is presented for the first time on appeal, it is waived. Id. See Nelson v. State, 661S.W.2d 122 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) (trial court s failure to give clarifying instruction during voir dire). Appellant s counsel neither made an objection premised on issue preclusion, submitted specific question(s) he was precluded from asking, nor filed a bill of exception. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant s first issue. See Barrett v. State, 516 S.W.2d 181, 182 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974). See also Dhillon v. State, 138 S.W.3d 583, 587-88 (Tex.App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). 2 In his brief, Appellant indicates none of the prospective jurors ultim ately sat on the jury. 3 II. Evidentiary Objection Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by permitting Deputy Pat Hagemeier to testify on the State s behalf by reading from a document admitted into evidence during the punishment phase of Appellant s trial.3 Having reviewed the record,4 we have determined Appellant s objections were made to Deputy Hagemeier s testimony related to the contents of State s Exhibit Number 11.5 The manner and means of the presentation of documentary evidence to a jury is best left to the sound discretion of a trial court. Wheatfall v. State, 882 S.W.2d 829, 838 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1086, 115 S.Ct. 742, 130 L.Ed.2d 644 (1995). Upon careful review of the record, we do not believe the trial court abused its discretion in permitting Deputy Hagemeier to read portions of the admitted exhibit into evidence. Id. at 837-38. Appellant s second issue is overruled. 3 Again, although Appellant s counsel attem pts to fram e this issue as a constitutional one based upon a deprivation of an accused s right of confrontation under the Texas Constitution, there is no evidence that Appellant was not perm itted to cross exam ine Deputy Hagem eier. In fact, the only evidence in the record indicates Appellant was perm itted to voir dire the witness and conduct cross exam ination. 4 Appellant s citations to the record are to the testim ony of Officer Adan Alem an, Deaf Sm ith County Sheriff s Office. Officer Alem an participated in Appellant s arrest for driving while intoxicated. The testim ony cited by Appellant contained no objections to any testim ony by Officer Alem an. 5 State s Exhibit Num ber 11 was adm itted as a public docum ent including the following: (1) a com plaint sworn by County Attorney Charles F. Aycock against Jim m y Jarrett alleging that, on February, 17, 1996, he was driving while intoxicated; (2) a bench warrant for Jim m y Jarrett s arrest issued by Bonnie J. Clayton, County Judge, Parm er County, signed February 20, 1996; (3) a warrant of arrest issued by Judge Clayton on February 20, 1996; (4) a waiver of rights executed by Jim m y Jarrett in The State of Texas v. Jimmy Jarrett, Cause No. 7487; and (5) a Judgm ent issued in Cause No. 7487 executed by Judge Clayton indicating Appellant pled guilty to his second offense for driving while intoxicated. Each docum ent was certified as a true and correct copy of an original on file in the Parm er County Clerk s office. 4 Conclusion The trial court s judgment is affirmed. Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish. 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.