Forrest Allen Lunsford, Jr. v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Forrest Allen Lunsford, Jr. v. State

DecidedJuly 20, 2006

Docket02-05-00316-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Forrest Allen Lunsford, Jr. v. State (Forrest Allen Lunsford, Jr. 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.

Bluebook

Forrest Allen Lunsford, Jr. v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 2-05-315-CR

2-05-316-CR

FORREST ALLEN LUNSFORD, JR. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION^{^[1]}

Appellant Forrest Allen Lunsford, Jr., appeals his two convictions for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a knife; both convictions arose out of the same criminal episode. After Appellant pled guilty to both charges, the jury assessed his punishment at thirty years= confinement in each case. In his sole point on appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by granting the State=s challenge for cause regarding two venire members who Appellant contends unequivocally stated that they would be able to consider the full range of punishment available for the offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. We affirm.

CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE

The code of criminal procedure allows the State to challenge a juror for cause if the State can show that the juror Ahas a bias or prejudice against any phase of the law upon which the State is entitled to rely for conviction or punishment.@ Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 35.16(b)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2005). Bias against the law is refusal to consider or apply the relevant law; it exists when a venire member=s beliefs or opinions "would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and oath." Sadler v. State, 977 S.W.2d 140, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Riley v. State, 889 S.W.2d 290, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1137 (1995). Jurors must be able to consider the full range of punishment for the crime as defined by the law. Sadler, 977 S.W.2d at 142. "They must be able, in a sense, to conceive both of a situation in which the minimum penalty would be appropriate and of a situation in which the maximum penalty would be appropriate." Id.; see Fuller v. State, 829 S.W.2d 191, 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 941 (1993). VOIR DIRE

During voir dire questioning, the State asked the venire members whether they could consider the full range of punishment, five to ninety-nine years or life, for each of the two offenses of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The prosecutor addressed the entire venire as follows:

[PROSECUTOR]: All right. Now that we have talked about that, let's talk about the punishment range. The range of punishment for aggravated robbery is five years in the penitentiary up to 99 years and/or life. Now, you're going to assess five to 99 years. You can give a $10,000 fine. If you're going to give life, there is no fine.

That's the punishment range. I can't talk to you about the facts of this case; otherwise, we would just try the case in voir dire, all right?

For every aggravated robbery, there is a set of circumstances that can warrant five years. For every aggravated robbery, there may be a set of circumstances that can warrant 99 years. There may be a set of circumstances that can warrant life, okay?

You need to think about whether or not you can consider giving someone five years and whether or not you can consider giving someone life or 99. It doesn't mean you have to; it means you at least need to be able to consider it, okay?

When someone pleads guilty, we still put on the facts and evidence of the case. Why? Because you need to decide what you're going to give. You need to be able to base this decision on some kind of set of facts and circumstances, right? Otherwise, why would we be here?

So after you listen to the facts and circumstances, you need to decide or consider, go back there, think, um, can I give five years or can I give 99? So that's what I'm going to ask you: Can you consider five and can you consider life?

This discussion then ensued between the prosecutor and venire members John Coyne and Dianne Anderson:

[PROSECUTOR]: Is it Coyne?

VENIREPERSON [Coyne]: Yeah.

[PROSECUTOR]: Can you consider 99 or life?

VENIREPERSON: Ninety‑nine or life, no.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI