Rodney Allen Boortz v. State

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00193-CR

RODNEY ALLEN BOORTZ APPELLANT V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY ----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

A jury convicted Appellant Rodney Allen Boortz of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and assessed his punishment at fifteen years’ confinement for the aggravated assault and ten years’ confinement for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The trial court sentenced him accordingly and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant brings a single point on appeal complaining of charge error.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

At trial, Appellant objected to the proposed jury charge. After changes were made, the trial court asked if the parties requested any other changes to the charge. Appellant’s counsel stated, “[I]t looks like the charge reflects those changes that I requested.”

A party may not complain on appeal that he was given the jury charge he requested.2 The invited error rule prohibits a party from succeeding in having a claimed jury charge error reviewed by a higher court in hopes of reversal when (1) that party requested the jury charge, and the charge was given or (2) the party affirmatively and successfully argued that the trial court include or exclude a portion of the charge.3 We therefore overrule Appellant’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 15, 2012

2

Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 (2000).

3

Wileford v. State, 72 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet.

ref’d).