Opinion
No. 05-04-01798-CR
Opinion Filed November 15, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F-0354309-TQ. Affirm.
Before Justices MOSELEY, BRIDGES, and O'NEILL.
OPINION
Raymond Lee Hall appeals his conviction for capital murder. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.03. (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). After a jury found him guilty, the trial court automatically sentenced him to life imprisonment. See Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Art. 12.31(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). In a single issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to statements made by the prosecutor during jury argument. We overrule appellant's issue and affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant was convicted of intentionally causing the death of Ronnie Medlock in the course of committing the offense of robbery. The evidence at trial showed that Medlock, his girlfriend Shawn Boston, and Reginald Franklin sold drugs out of Medlock's apartment. Appellant, who is also Boston's uncle, contacted Boston two days before Medlock's death and asked to borrow money. Boston agreed to the loan and two days later, appellant went to Medlock's apartment to collect the money. Appellant entered the apartment and when Boston handed him the cash, appellant pulled out a gun. He pointed it at Medlock and demanded that Medlock hand over all of his money as well. Appellant frisked Medlock and found a .9-millimeter hand gun, which he took and pointed at Boston. Franklin arrived at the apartment with cash in hand and knocked on the door. Appellant pulled Franklin inside and grabbed for the money he was holding. The two men struggled and appellant shot Franklin. Boston testified that after the shot, she ran to the kitchen and crouched down behind the refigerator door. She heard more shots and then heard Medlock moaning. Appellant next turned the gun on Boston and began firing. She was shot nine times. Police found Franklin at a pay phone down the street from Medlock's apartment. A neighbor found Boston and Medlock inside Medlock's apartment. All three victims were transported to the hospital where Medlock was pronounced dead. Police interviewed Boston and she identified appellant as her assailant. The next day, Officer Kenneth Penrod interviewed Franklin and showed him a photo line-up which contained appellant's picture. Without going into what Franklin told him specifically, Officer Penrod testified that Franklin identified his assailant. Based on their conversation, Officer Penrod obtained a warrant for appellant's arrest. Appellant claims the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the State's assertion during jury argument that Franklin told Officer Penrod that appellant shot him. Appellant claims this argument was improper because Officer Penrod did not testify as to who Franklin identified as his assailant. There are four areas of proper jury argument: (1) summation of the evidence, (2) reasonable deductions drawn from the evidence, (3) answer to opposing counsel's argument, and (4) plea for law enforcement. Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 115 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 944 (2001). If the argument in question exceeds the bounds of proper jury argument, appellant is entitled to a reversal only if he can show his substantial rights were adversely affected. Tex.R.App.P. 44.2(b); Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 692 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Officer Penrod testified that he presented Franklin with a photo line-up containing appellant's picture and that Franklin identified the person that shot him. Based on their conversation, Officer Penrod obtained a warrant for appellant's arrest. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant's objection to the prosecutor's statement because it was a reasonable deduction from the evidence that Franklin identified appellant as the person who shot him. See Gaddis v. State, 753 S.W.2d 396, 398 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988) (stating that counsel is allowed wide latitude in drawing inferences from the evidence so long as they are reasonable, fair, legitimate, and offered in good faith). Even assuming the prosecutor's argument was improper, appellant is not entitled to relief because he has failed to show he was harmed. Tex.R.App.P. 44.2(b). The crux of his argument is that the State was improperly allowed to argue Franklin identified him as the shooter. However, identity was not an issue in this case. Appellant testified at trial that he shot Franklin, but claimed he was not guilty because he did so in self-defense. Accordingly, appellant's sole issue is overruled. We affirm the trial court's judgment.