Opinion
No. 10-06-00232-CR
Opinion delivered and filed November 14, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 272nd District Court, Brazos County, Texas, Trial Court No. 05-00944-CRF-272. Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Stephen Gilbert was found guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery. Punishment was assessed by a jury in each count at 30 years in prison. We affirm. In Gilbert's sole issue, he contends the trial court erred in overruling his request for an instruction on the defense of necessity. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.22 (Vernon 2003). In order to raise necessity, a defendant admits violating the statute under which he is charged and then offers necessity as a justification which weighs against imposing a criminal punishment for the acts or acts which violated the statute. Young v. State, 991 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Vrba v. State, 69 S.W.3d 713, 724 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, no pet.). Gilbert was charged with two counts of aggravated robbery. As in Young, Gilbert did not present the defense of necessity during trial. Gilbert did not admit to committing aggravated robbery and assert he was justified in doing so by the defense of necessity. Instead, he specifically denied committing aggravated robbery. He denied hitting anyone, or demanding money from anyone, or taking money from anyone, key elements alleged by the State. He also denied being a lookout. Gilbert even went so far as to testify that he lied to police when he told them he did commit the offenses. Gilbert was therefore not entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of necessity. Because Gilbert was not entitled to a jury instruction on necessity, the trial court did not err in overruling his request for the instruction. Gilbert's sole issue is overruled, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.