Sherrick Dwayne Ringer v. State ( 2004 )

Sherrick Dwayne Ringer v. The State of Texas

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-03-146-CR

SHERRICK DWAYNE RINGER APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 371 ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^{(footnote: 1)}

-----------

A jury convicted Appellant Sherrick Dwayne Ringer of four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen and sentenced him to fifty years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant brings a single point on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his Batson ^{(footnote: 2)} challenge to the State’s exercise of a peremptory strike against a black veniremember.  Because we hold that the trial court did not err, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The prosecutor struck Chris E. Onyeador, a black veniremember.  Appellant lodged his Batson challenge, and the trial court asked the State to explain the use of its peremptory challenge.  The reasons the prosecutor provided were:  (1) the veniremember’s name gave her reason to believe that he was born outside this country; (2) his accent gave her the impression that he was from Africa; (3) his accent was so “incredibly heavy” that she could not “understand most of what he said”; (4) she had concerns as to whether he would be able to understand English sufficiently; and (5) he looked “a little . . . lost” a couple of times.

Appellant argues that the prosecutor’s first two reasons are race-based and that the remaining three are unsupported by the record.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that nationality is a race-neutral reason for striking a veniremember. ^{(footnote: 3)}  Based on this reasoning, we are compelled to hold that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s Batson challenge. ^{(footnote: 4)}

We overrule Appellant’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

JUSTICE

PANEL A: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  May 13, 2004

FOOTNOTES

1:

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2:

Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986).

3:

Wamget v. State , 67 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that the country of one's birth, standing alone, is race-neutral).

4:

See Herron v. State , 86 S.W.3d 621, 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (holding that because the State offered race-neutral motives for its strike, and appellant failed to rebut those motives, the trial court did not err).