### NUM BER 13-08- 0008 0-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G

FL ORE NC IO T ORR ES, A pp ellan t,

v. TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 14 8t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez After a j ur

y tr ial , app ellan t, F lor enci o Tor re s, w as conv ic ted o f thre e c ounts of aggr avated se x ual assa ult of a child, a f irst-degree f elon y , and tw o cou nts of indece ncy

w it h a chi ld, a s econd -d eg re e felony

. See T EX

. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.021 (V er non Su pp. 200 8), § 21 .11 (Vernon 200 3). In a single issue, Torres conten ds tha t he w as den ied a f airT he S t ate ha s no t fi l ed a b ri ef. 1
As t hi s i s a m em or andum opi ni on, and t he p ar t i es ar e f am i l i ar wi t h t he f act s, we wi l l not r eci t e t hem 2 h e re e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry t o e x p l a i n th e C o u rt’ s d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47. 4. 2 tr i al b ec au s e of p r os ec ut or i al mi s c on du c t. W e affi r m. 1 2
I. P ROSECUTORI A L M I S CONDU CT In hi s s ole i ss ue, T o rre s a ss erts that the p ro sec utor eng ag ed i n pr osec utor ial mis condu ct by

maki ng the follo w ing st atement dur ing cl osi ng ar g ument: Don’t let [d ef ense coun sel] mu ddy the w ate rs. T hat ’s his job, but you’re all smar ter than that

. That’s w hat h e’s doi ng
. It’ s ki nd of l ik e an oct opus in the w ater

. A defensi v e mech ani sm a[n] oct opus does is i f they se nse someone appr oachi ng that ’s dang er ous is to g iv e out thi s i nky su bst ance so it ca n’t be s e e [ n ] a n d t h e wa t e r b e c o m e s m u rk y. T h a t ’s t h e r o le o f a [ d ] e f e n s e a t t o rn e y. Pl ease don’ t l et t hat h appen h er e. Con ti nue f oll ow ing yo ur common sens e, a n d if yo u f o ll o w yo u r c o m m o n se n s e yo u wil l r e n d e r a ve rd ic t o f gu il t y. T orres did not obje ct to th e prose cuto r’s statem ent , request an instruction , or move f or a mistrial.
Pr o se cut or ial j ur

y ar g ument s houl d g ener all y be l imi ted t o: (1 ) summati on of the

ev ide nce; ( 2) r eason abl e deduc ti ons f ro m t he ev ide nce; ( 3) ans w er to ar g ument of oppos ing counsel ; and (4) pleas for law enforc ement. C annon v . St ate , 668 S.W .2d 4 01, 404 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984) ; Lawson v. Stat e , 896 S.W .2d 8 28, 8 33 ( Tex . Ap p.– Cor pus Christi 1995 , w rit r ef ’d). T o prese rv e jury argumen t error, the de f end ant must : (1) ma ke

a ti mely and spec ific obj ect ion ; (2 ) re q uest an i nst ru cti on th at t he j ur y di sr eg ar d the matte r impr oper ly

placed bef or e it; and ( 3) mov e for a mi str ial

. Coc kr ell v. Sta te , 933 S.W .2d 7 3, 89 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996)

. W e “ maint ain a s peci al conc er n for final ar g uments that r esul t in uni nv it ed and

unsu bsta ntiat ed a ccusat ion of improp e r c o ndu ct directed at a de f end ant ’s attorne y .” Or ona v . St ate , 791 S.W .2d 1 25, 1 28 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1990)

. How ev er , “mi ld comments3

maynot be er ro neous , so lon g as they can be int er pr eted as an at tac k o n ar g uments made by the def ense coun sel.” Mo sl ey v. Stat e , 983 S.W .2d 2 49, 2 58- 59 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998)

. Ev en as sumi ng that the pr osec utor ’s st atement w as er ro neous , w e conc lud e tha t by fail ing to obj ect , Tor re s h as faile d to pr eser v e any er ro r for appe al. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33. 1(a)(1); Cockrell , 933 S.W .2d at 89; see a lso Coo k v . St ate , 8 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 4 6 7 , 4 7 3 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1993) (hol din g that a defendant must make an obj ect ion , req uest an ins tr uct ion to dis re g ar d, an d mov e for a mi str ial i n or der to pr eser

v e j ur y ar g ument er ro r for appe ll ate

re v iew ); see also Car

ter v. Sta te , N o. 13 -0 8- 107- CR , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 686, at **1 0- 11 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Ma r. 12, 2 009, no pet .) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( same)

. Addi ti onal ly , Tor re s a ttempt s t o c har act er iz e the al leg ed er ro r as cons ti tuti onal er ro r by ar g uin g that the Stat e “i mpug ned defense couns el’ s c har act er and ethi cs and ther e by [sic] dimin ished and und ermin ed d ef end ant ’s fu ll r ight to the a ssistance of his counse l in

v iol ati on of the Si x th A mendment o f t he U nit ed St ate C onst it uti on and in v iol ati on of the Due Pr oces s Cl ause of the F our teent h Amendment of the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on.” Comment s s imi lar

to thos e made by the Stat e hav e been re g ar ded as non- cons ti tuti onal

er ro r. See M o s l ey , 9 8 3 S .W .2d at 259 (holding that improp er com me nts on def ense
couns el’ s h onest y

do n ot amoun t to a cons ti tuti onal v iol ati on)

. C oncl udi ng that noth ing has been pr eser

v ed for our

r ev iew , w e ov er ru le Torr es’ s s ole i ss ue.

II. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led Torr es’ s s ole i ss ue, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do Not Publ is h. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 7.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 24t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.