Cedric Deshun Alexander v. the State of Texas
This text of Cedric Deshun Alexander v. the State of Texas (Cedric Deshun Alexander v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-24-00097-CR
CEDRIC DESHUN ALEXANDER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 5th District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 21F1019-005
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin MEMORANDUM OPINION
A Bowie County jury convicted Cedric Deshun Alexander of engaging in organized
criminal activity, a first-degree felony, and assessed a sentence of imprisonment for life and a
$10,000.00 fine. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 71.02 (Supp.). On appeal, Alexander argues that
the trial court erred by (1) admitting evidence of extraneous offenses, (2) failing to conduct a
Rule 403 balancing test before admitting the extraneous offenses, (3) allowing the State to make
inflammatory statements, and (4) allowing the State to reference the arrests and convictions of
Alexander’s alleged co-participants.1
Alexander’s points of error are identical to the ones he raised in his appeal under our
appellate cause number 06-24-00096-CR. For the reasons stated in our opinion in 06-24-00096-
CR, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the extraneous-offense
evidence and that the trial court presumptively conducted a Rule 403 balancing test when
admitting the evidence. See TEX. R. EVID. 403. We also find that Alexander failed to preserve
his last two points of error for our review. As a result, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.2
Jeff Rambin Justice
Date Submitted: March 31, 2025 Date Decided: April 1, 2025
Do Not Publish
1 In cause numbers 06-24-00096-CR and 06-24-00098-CR, Alexander appeals two other convictions for engaging in organized criminal activity. 2 Alexander also argues that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors deprived him of a fair trial. Because we overrule Alexandar’s four points of error, we also overrule his cumulative-error complaint. 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cedric Deshun Alexander v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cedric-deshun-alexander-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.