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, Par tida-Kipness, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Reichek Mackenzie Rene Chesney entered open pleas of guilty to intoxica tion manslaughter and intoxication assa ult, both with a deadly weapo n, in connection with a motor vehicle accident t hat killed one person and injure d another. In the intoxication manslaughter case, the jury assessed punishment at four years in prison. In the intoxication assault cas e, the jury assessed punishment at five years in prison but recommended that appellant be placed on community supervisi on; the trial court followed the jury’s recommendation and placed appellant on eigh t years’ community supervision. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. arts. 42A.053(d), 42A.055(a). In a2 single issue, appellant argues th e trial court reversibly erred by allowing an improper jury argument. For the reason set out below, we affirm the tri al court’s judgments. Appellant testified that on the night of the accident, she mana ged a show cattle company and was at the barn prep aring for a county show. Appel lant said while there, she believed she drank f our or five beers over several h ours. While driving home on U.S. 75 in McKinney, she r emembered she missed a call f rom 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 s houlder. Appellant was travelin g 68 mph at the time. The crash killed the driver of the car, Areli Joyner, and serio usly 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 p rosecutor stated the following : [PROSECUTOR]: I want to flip here for Verdict Form Punishment. This is what we’re really here fo r today, to determine if this Defendant deserves punishment or deserves probation for both intox mansla ughter 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 a rgument was improper because it framed the issue as a “choice between e ither3 punishing her by sending her to p rison, or not punishing her an d placing her on probation.” After the trial court sustaine d appellant’s objection, appellan t did not request the trial court to instru ct the jury to disregard nor d id she move for a mistrial. Appellant acknowledged a s much on appeal but neverthe less 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 defe ndant “will be permitted to complain on appeal about an erroneous jur y argument or that an instruction to disregard could not have cured an errone ous jury argument, he will have to show he objected and pursued his obje ction 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 t o disregard is inadequate to cure erroneous jur y argument, defendant must obje ct 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 m oved for a mistrial to preserve this er ror”).4 Appellant failed to pursue her objection to an adverse ruling; consequently, she has waived thi s issue. Moreover, we note tha t the jury recommended community supervisio n in one of the cases (intoxica tion assault); thus, it is difficult to reconcile appellant’s argume nt with the punishment verdicts reached by t he jury. We overrule the sole issue. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) 181464F.U05 /Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE5 

# 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 JusticeReichek; Justices Myers and PartidaKipness participating. Based on the Court’s opinion o f this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered April 27, 20206 

# 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 JusticeReichek; Justices Myers and PartidaKipness participating. Based on the Court’s opinion o f this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered April 27, 2020