PAUL EUGENE HENSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 19, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-88-00821-CR
............................
PAUL EUGENE HENSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.................................................................
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F88-93245-JV
.................................................................
O P I N I O N
Before Justices Stewart, Lagarde and Burnett
Opinion Per Curiam
        Paul Eugene Henson was convicted in a jury trial of the offense of burglary of a habitation. Punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions, was assessed at ninety-nine years' confinement. Appellant claims that the prosecutor's jury argument at the guilt-innocence stage of trial constituted reversible error. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
        The evidence adduced at trial revealed that at the time appellant was apprehended, he struggled with Calvin Levier, a security guard. Levier testified that during the struggle, appellant kept reaching for his back pocket. After he had subdued appellant, Levier found a screwdriver in appellant's back pocket. After both sides had closed, the State made the following argument:
            Ladies and gentlemen, think about this man's intent. Did he intend to commit theft? I think that's obvious. But by the same token, I want you to consider what this man might have done if Calvin Levier was not as strong an individual as he was. I think that Mr. Levier's very fortunate to be testifying to you, before you all today in a burglary trial as opposed to being pictured as the victim of a murder trial which --
 
    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your honor, I'm going to object.
 
        THE COURT: I'll sustain that.
 
    Ladies and gentlemen, the lawyers are entitled to make reasonable deductions and logical inferences from the evidence as long as they label them as such.
 
            Go ahead, please.
 
    [THE STATE]: Ladies and gentlemen, you'll make your own conclusions. And as I said before, that is something for you to consider from the testimony. But don't forget what Calvin told you about what the defendant was doing, what was in that left back pocket. What do you think he intended to do with it.
 
                Once again --        
        
    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I'm going to object to that whole line of speculation as irrelevant.
 
    THE COURT: Well, I will -- the lawyers are entitled to make reasonable deductions, as I said before, and logical inferences from the evidence, as long as they label them as such. If you find them to be so you may consider them. If you don't, you must disregard them.
 
                Go ahead, please.
        In order to complain of error on appeal, an appellant must object at trial and obtain a ruling from the trial court. Lewis v. State, 664 S.W.2d 345, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Tex. R. App. P. 52(a). The proper method of pursuing an objection until an adverse ruling is to (1) object, (2) request an instruction to disregard, and (3) move for a mistrial. Sawyers v. State, 724 S.W.2d 24, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Mills v. State, 747 S.W.2d 818, 821-822 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1987, no pet.). Failure to follow this procedure waives error, unless the argument is so inflammatory that its prejudicial effect could not have been alleviated by an instruction to disregard. Sawyers, 724 S.W.2d at 38. In addition, an appellant is not entitled to relief when he receives all the relief he requested. Duran v. State, 505 S.W.2d 863, 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).
        In the present cause, appellant's objection to the State's argument was sustained, and no further relief was requested. Thus, appellant has waived any right to relief based on the State's jury argument, unless the argument was so inflammatory that its effect could not have been cured by an instruction to disregard. Assuming that the State's argument was not a reasonable deduction from this evidence, we conclude that any prejudice resulting from this argument could have been cured by an instruction to disregard. Compare Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 823, 830 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (argument that appellant did not kill anyone only because he ran out of ammunition, not supported by evidence, cured by instruction to disregard). Accordingly, we hold that appellant waived any claim of relief based on the State's argument. Appellant's point of error is overruled.
        The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
                                                  PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90
880821.U05
 
 
File Date[10-18-89]
File Name[880821]