Opinion
No. 10-01-367-CR
Opinion delivered and filed December 31, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 12th District Court, Madison County, Texas, Trial Court # 10378. Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Judge ALLEN (Sitting by Assignment).
George Allen, Judge of the 54th District Court of McLennan County, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to section 74.003(h) of the Government Code. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.003(h) (Vernon Supp. 2004).
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Harry Parrish of assaulting two correctional officers. Parrish pleaded "true" to an enhancement allegation, and the jury assessed his punishment at thirteen years' imprisonment on each count. Parrish contends in his sole point that the court abused its discretion by denying his challenge for cause as to two members of the venire who stated that they would vote to convict even if the State failed to prove venue. Although Parrish challenged these two jurors for cause, he did not exercise peremptory challenges against them after the court denied the challenges for cause.
To preserve error on denied challenges for cause, an appellant must demonstrate on the record that: 1) he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause; 2) he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of venireperson; 3) all his peremptory challenges were exhausted; 4) his request for additional strikes was denied; and 5) an objectionable juror sat on the jury.Sells v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 73,993, slip op. at 13, 2003 Tex.Crim. App. LEXIS 63, at *18 (Tex.Crim.App. Mar. 15, 2003); accord Allen v. State, 108 S.W.3d 281, 282 (Tex.Crim. App. 2003); Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex.Crim. App. 2002); Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918, 922 (Tex.Crim. App. 2002); Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526, 534 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); but see Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 5-6 n. 6 (Tex.Crim. App. 2001) (identifying the 2nd thru 4th factors listed above as indicative of whether the defendant was harmed by the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause and stating in the footnote, "In the past we have confused preservation of error and harm issues within the context of an erroneous denial of a challenge for cause."). Because Parrish did not exercise peremptory challenges against the two jurors of which he complains on appeal, he failed to preserve this issue for our review. Id. Thus, we overrule his sole point. We affirm the judgment.