Kenneth Ray Sowell v. State
This text of Kenneth Ray Sowell v. State (Kenneth Ray Sowell 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
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 2, 2006.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
_______________
NO. 14-05-00864-CR
KENNETH RAY SOWELL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1007515
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Kenneth Ray Sowell appeals a conviction for aggravated robbery[1] on the grounds that: (1) the trial court erred by submitting a definition of reasonable doubt to the jury venire panel in violation of Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); (2) the live identification line-up of appellant was unduly suggestive because the other participants in the line-up were physically dissimilar; and (3) the trial court erred by allowing testimony during the guilt phase that suggested extraneous offenses. However, because appellant failed to object to the trial court=s alleged definition of reasonable doubt,[2] the alleged line-up as being impermissibly suggestive,[3] or any of the testimony that he now complains suggested extraneous offenses,[4] his complaints are not preserved for our review. Accordingly, appellant=s three issues are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
/s/ Richard H. Edelman
Justice
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 2, 2006.
Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Frost.
Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] A jury convicted appellant of aggravated robbery, found one enhancement paragraph true, and imposed a sentence of 70 years= confinement.
[2] See Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (holding that defendant failed to preserve error by not renewing his objection when the trial court rephrased its definition of reasonable doubt during voir dire).
[3] Perry v. State, 703 S.W.2d 668, 670B71 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (finding waiver because defendant failed to object or complain about the out-of-court identification procedure at trial).
[4] Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Kenneth Ray Sowell v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-ray-sowell-v-state-texapp-2006.