AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed April 27, 2020 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01464-CR 

No. 05-18-01482-CR 

MACKENZIE RENE CHESNEY, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. 401-81645-2017 & 401-81646-2017 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Reichek 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

Mackenzie Rene Chesney entered open pleas of guilty to intoxication 

manslaughter and intoxication assault, both with a deadly weapon, in connection 

with a motor vehicle accident that killed one person and injured another. In the 

intoxication manslaughter case, the jury assessed punishment at four years in prison. 

In the intoxication assault case, the jury assessed punishment at five years in prison 

but recommended that appellant be placed on community supervision; the trial court 

followed the jury’s recommendation and placed appellant on eight years’ community 

supervision. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 42A.053(d), 42A.055(a). In a 
2 

single issue, appellant argues the trial court reversibly erred by allowing an improper 

jury argument. For the reason set out below, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

Appellant testified that on the night of the accident, she managed a show cattle 

company and was at the barn preparing for a county show. Appellant said while 

there, she believed she drank four or five beers over several hours. While driving 

home on U.S. 75 in McKinney, she remembered she missed a call from her mother. 

Appellant said she looked down at her cell phone to return the call and crashed into 

a car parked on the highway’s shoulder. Appellant was traveling 68 mph at the time. 

The crash killed the driver of the car, Areli Joyner, and seriously injured the 

passenger, Mark Garren. Testing subsequently showed appellant’s blood-alcohol 

content was .189, more than two times the legal limit. 

During punishment argument, the prosecutor stated the following: 

[PROSECUTOR]: I want to flip here for Verdict Form Punishment. 

This is what we’re really here for today, to determine if this Defendant 

deserves punishment or deserves probation for both intox manslaughter 

and - - 

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Object to the connotation that probation is

not punishment, Your Honor. 

[TRIAL COURT]: Sustained. 

[PROSECUTOR]: We are here to decide if she gets prison time or if 

she gets probation as part of this punishment stage. . . . 

 In her sole issue, appellant complains that the prosecutor’s argument 

was improper because it framed the issue as a “choice between either 
3 

punishing her by sending her to prison, or not punishing her and placing her 

on probation.” 

After the trial court sustained appellant’s objection, appellant did not 

request the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard nor did she move for a 

mistrial. Appellant acknowledged as much on appeal but nevertheless asserts 

reversal is required because an instruction to disregard would have had no 

effect. We cannot agree. 

The court of criminal appeals has made clear that before a defendant 

“will be permitted to complain on appeal about an erroneous jury argument or 

that an instruction to disregard could not have cured an erroneous jury 

argument, he will have to show he objected and pursued his objection to an 

adverse ruling.” Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); 

Hernandez v. State, 538 S.W.3d 619, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (reaffirming 

that before defendant can claim on appeal that an instruction to disregard is 

inadequate to cure erroneous jury argument, defendant must object and pursue 

objection to adverse ruling); Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 303 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2010) (concluding that even if prosecutor’s argument was so 

egregious that instruction to disregard could not have possibly cured harm, 

“appellant should have moved for a mistrial to preserve this error”). 
4 

Appellant failed to pursue her objection to an adverse ruling; 

consequently, she has waived this issue. Moreover, we note that the jury 

recommended community supervision in one of the cases (intoxication 

assault); thus, it is difficult to reconcile appellant’s argument with the 

punishment verdicts reached by the jury. We overrule the sole issue. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

181464F.U05 

 

/Amanda L. Reichek/ 

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE 
5 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MACKENZIE RENE CHESNEY, 

Appellant 

No. 05-18-01464-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 401st Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 401-81645-

2017. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek; Justices Myers and PartidaKipness participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered April 27, 2020 

 
6 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MACKENZIE RENE CHESNEY, 

Appellant 

No. 05-18-01482-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 401st Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 401-81646-

2017. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek; Justices Myers and PartidaKipness participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered April 27, 2020