Summary
The Sixth Court of Appeals of Texas at Texarkana affirmed Jeffrey Dale Troxel’s life sentence for assaulting a peace officer after concluding that his challenge to the prosecutor’s closing argument was not preserved because he failed to object at trial. The court modified the judgment to reflect Troxel’s pleas and the jury’s findings on the habitual-offender punishment enhancement allegations.
Holdings
- Troxel forfeited his complaint about the prosecutor's closing argument because he made no timely objection or other timely presentation of the issue to the trial court.
- The appellate court had authority to modify the judgment to reflect Troxel's pleas and the jury's findings on the punishment-enhancement allegations and to affirm the judgment as modified.
Questions Presented
- Whether Troxel preserved his complaint that the prosecutor's closing argument was an improper plea for law enforcement and violated due process.
- Whether the appellate court could modify the trial court's judgment to correct its omission of Troxel's pleas and the jury's findings on the punishment-enhancement allegations.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (11)
- Milton v. State, 572 S.W.3d 234, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019)(cited)
- Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)(followed)
- Garcia v. State, 553 S.W.3d 645, 648 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2018, pet. ref'd)(cited)
- Hernandez v. State, 538 S.W.3d 619, 622-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)(followed)
- Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)(cited)
- Owens v. State, 549 S.W.3d 735, 744 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, pet. ref'd)(followed)
- Yazdchi v. State, 428 S.W.3d 831, 844 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)(cited)
- Valdez v. State, 2 S.W.3d 518, 521-22 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd)(cited)
- Anthony v. State, 531 S.W.3d 739, 743 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.)(followed)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…