eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2012-01

Corey Conner v. State ( 2012 )


Menu:
 
  •                                   NO. 07-11-0165-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JANUARY 30, 2012
_________________________
COREY CONNER,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
__________________________
FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2010-426,098; HONORABLE BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, PRESIDING
__________________________
Memorandum Opinion
__________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant Corey Conner challenges his conviction of murder by contending the
State improperly bolstered and vouched for the credibility of its witnesses during closing
argument.   We affirm the judgment because the complaint was not preserved for
appeal.
Error pertaining to jury argument is waived by the failure to make a timely and
proper objection. Estrada v. State,
    313 S.W.3d 274
    , 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), cert.
denied, __ U.S. __,
    131 S. Ct. 905
    ,
    178 L. Ed. 2d 760 
    (2011); Miles v. State,
    312 S.W.3d 909
    , 911 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d); Lange v. State,
    57 S.W.3d 458
    ,
467 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2002, pet. ref’d).              Moreover, the grounds underlying any
objection uttered at trial must comport with those asserted on appeal. Pena v. State,
    285 S.W.3d 459
    , 464 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Because appellant did not object to some
of the comments in question and the objection raised regarding others failed to comport
with his complaint on appeal, the purported errors were not preserved for review.1
Appellant concedes as much but nonetheless asks us to deem the complaint “plain
error” under United States v. Gracia,
    522 F.3d 597 
    (5th Cir. 2008) and dispense with the
preservation requirement. To do that, however, would be to ignore holdings of the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals akin to that in Estrada. We may not do that. Instead,
we invite appellant to propose his request for a new standard of review to the Court of
Criminal Appeals.
Accordingly, the issue is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
1
At one point, appellant objected to the prosecutor’s reference to the statements purportedly
made by individuals who did not testify. When the prosecutor explained that he was only referring to the
fact that statements were taken and not to their content, appellant responded, “[t]hat’s fine.” The court
then overruled the objection.
2