Christopher Darnell Braxton v. State
This text of Christopher Darnell Braxton v. State (Christopher Darnell Braxton v. State) 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
i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-08-00511-CR
Christopher Darnell BRAXTON, Appellant v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas Trial Court No. 11111-CR Honorable Thomas F. Lee, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 16, 2009
AFFIRMED
Christopher Darnell Braxton was convicted of two counts of theft of property and the jury
assessed punishment at eighteen months in a state jail facility and a $3,500 fine. In his sole point
of error on appeal, Braxton argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. Because
we agree with the State that Braxton failed to preserve his complaint for appeal, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment. 04-08-00511-CR
Braxton objected to comments made by the prosecutor during the State’s rebuttal jury
argument in the punishment phase of the trial. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the
comments, and the prosecutor concluded his argument. Later, after the jury had begun deliberations,
Braxton moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion.
To preserve an issue for appellate review, the complaint must have been made to the trial
court by a timely request, objection, or motion. TEX . R. APP . P. 33.1. “A motion for mistrial is
timely only if it is made as soon as the grounds for it become apparent.” Griggs v. State, 213 S.W.3d
923, 927 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 153 (2007). Here, the grounds for Braxton’s
motion for mistrial became apparent during the State’s argument. Braxton’s motion for a mistrial,
made after the jury retired to deliberate, was therefore untimely and failed to preserve his complaint
for appellate review. See id.; Barrett v. State, 900 S.W.2d 748, 750 n. 1 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995, pet.
ref’d).
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Christopher Darnell Braxton v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-darnell-braxton-v-state-texapp-2009.