Thomas Reyes v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Thomas Reyes v. State

DecidedFebruary 8, 1995

Docket03-93-00579-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Thomas Reyes v. State (Thomas Reyes 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

Thomas Reyes v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-93-00579-CR

Thomas Reyes, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0931534, HONORABLE MIKE LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault. Act of May 26, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 573, § 1, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 2275, amended by Act of July 18, 1987, 70th Leg., 2d C.S., ch. 16, § 1, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 80 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021, since amended). The district court assessed punishment at imprisonment for forty years.

In his only point of error, appellant contends the district court erred by permitting the prosecutor to strike at appellant through defense counsel. During jury argument, the prosecutor said, "Mr. Shuvalov [defense counsel] gets paid to come up here and not be satisfied with the State's case. He will come in here next week and say the same thing. That's his job and he is doing his job." Appellant's objection was overruled.

The prosecutor's argument did not attack defense counsel's character or accuse counsel of improper conduct. Cf. Gomez v. State, 704 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Fuentes v. State, 664 S.W.2d 333, 337 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Bell v. State, 614 S.W.2d 122, 123 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Lewis v. State, 529 S.W.2d 533, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). The prosecutor was merely responding to defense counsel's argument, during which he vigorously attacked the sufficiency of the State's evidence. Similar arguments under similar circumstances have been held to be permissible adversarial comment. McGee v. State, 774 S.W.2d 229, 238-39 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Shipp v. State, 482 S.W.2d 870, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No error is presented.

The point of error is overruled and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and Kidd

Affirmed

Filed: February 8, 1995

Do Not Publish

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

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-93-00579-CR

Thomas Reyes, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0931534, HONORABLE MIKE LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault. Act of May 26, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 573, § 1, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 2275, amended by Act of July 18, 1987, 70th Leg., 2d C.S., ch. 16, § 1, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 80 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021, since amended). The district court assessed punishment at imprisonment for forty years.

In his only point of error, appellant contends the district court erred by permitting the prosecutor to strike at appellant through defense counsel. During jury argument, the prosecutor said, "Mr. Shuvalov [defense counsel] gets paid to come up here and not be satisfied with the State's case. He will come in here next week and say the same thing. That's his job and he is doing his job." Appellant's objection was overruled.

The prosecutor's argument did not attack defense counsel's character or accuse counsel of improper conduct. Cf. Gomez v. State, 704 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Fuentes v. State, 664 S.W.2d 333, 337 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Bell v. State, 614 S.W.2d 122, 123 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Lewis v. State, 529 S.W.2d 533, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). The prosecutor was merely responding to defense counsel's argument, during which he vigorously attacked the sufficiency of the State's evidence. Similar arguments under similar circumstances have been held to be permissible adversarial comment. McGee v. State, 774 S.W.2d 229, 238-39 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Shipp v. State, 482 S.W.2d 870, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No error is presented.

The point of error is overruled and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and Kidd

Affirmed

Filed: February 8, 1995

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Thomas Reyes v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-reyes-v-state-texapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack