Bradford v. State

Full title: STEPHEN DAYNE BRADFORD, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Jan 24, 2006

No. 05-05-00278-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 24, 2006)

Opinion

No. 05-05-00278-CR

Opinion issued January 24, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F04-55621-LV. Affirmed.

Before Justices O'NEILL, FITZGERALD, and LANG.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice FITZGERALD.

Stephen Dayne Bradford appeals his conviction for robbery enhanced by two prior felony convictions. After finding appellant guilty, the jury found the enhancement allegations true and assessed appellant's punishment at fifty-eight years' imprisonment. Appellant brings one point of error asserting the trial court erred in denying his objection to the State's closing argument at punishment. We affirm the trial court's judgment. During the State's closing jury argument at the punishment phase, the following occurred:

[Prosecutor]: . . . He is a dope dealer. You heard from his mother and his wife that he is a hard worker. He's a hard worker, hard out on our streets selling cocaine. Hard worker, breaking into our homes while we're at work —

[Defense Counsel]: Object to improper closing.

[Prosecutor]:-trying to make a living.

The Court: Overruled. It's jury argument.

Appellant's objection of "improper closing" was too general to preserve any error for appeal because the objection did not make the trial court aware of the specific grounds of appellant's complaint, and the specific grounds were not apparent from the context. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1); Earnhart v. State, 582 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (objection of "That is not a proper argument" too general to preserve error); Huggins v. State, 795 S.W.2d 909, 912 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1990, pet. ref'd) (objection of "an improper comment" too general to preserve error). Also, appellant's argument on appeal, that the prosecutor's jury argument was outside the record, does not comport with his objection in the trial court. See Coffey v. State, 796 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990); Johnson v. State, 932 S.W.2d 116, 117 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd). We conclude appellant did not preserve the asserted error for appellate review. We overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.