COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00346-CR

NO. 02-10-00347-CR

EVARISTO RODRIGUEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

A jury convicted Appellant Evaristo Rodriguez of possession with intent to 

deliver between one and four grams of cocaine and possession with intent to 

deliver between four and two hundred grams of heroin, found enhancement 

allegations in each cause true, and sentenced Rodriguez to life in prison and a 

$10,000 fine in each cause. In a single point, Rodriguez argues that the trial 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

court reversibly erred by overruling his objection to the State’s jury argument. 

We will affirm.

The following exchange occurred during the State’s closing argument at 

punishment:

[State]: There are different reasons for punishment.

The first is for the sake of punishment. This defendant 

deserves every day in the pen that you’re going to give him. . . .

But it also allows you to think of deterrence. And, yes, you do 

need to send a message. But the most important thing is to think 

about what you’re going to tell him, and you’re going to tell him that 

you are not going to tolerate it; you’re not going to tolerate his 

behavior, his spreading this on the streets of Tarrant County.

Because this is what he’s done. This is what he does. 

Defense told you, well, you know what? He’s not a violent person. 

He’s never hurt anyone.

Seriously? I mean, seriously, you’re going to believe that he 

has never hurt anyone?

Ladies and Gentlemen, how many people do you think this 

(indicating) affects?

[Defense counsel]: I’ll object to -- this is outside the record, 

Judge.

THE COURT: Overrule the objection.

[State]: How many people would this number of capsules 

affect and hurt?

. . . .

I mean, that’s ridiculous to suggest that he’s never hurt 

anyone, that he doesn’t have anyone buying these drugs, and he’s 

some ineffective wannabe drug dealer. [Emphasis added.]
3

To preserve jury argument error, a contemporaneous objection must be 

made and an adverse ruling obtained. Cooks v. State, 844 S.W.2d 697, 727 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 927 (1993). Further, a 

contemporaneous objection must occur each time the objectionable jury 

argument is made or the complaint is forfeited. Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 

89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1173 (1997); Briones v. State, 

12 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, no pet.) (“Where an 

impermissible argument is pursued after objection, counsel must lodge a new 

objection each and every time the objectionable argument is made.”).

Although Rodriguez objected and obtained an adverse ruling in regard to 

the State’s initial argument responding to Rodriguez’s contention that he had 

never “actually physically hurt anybody,” Rodriguez did not assert an objection 

when the State made the same argument after the trial court overruled his 

objection. Because Rodriguez did not lodge a new objection to the same jury 

argument, he failed to preserve this point for appellate review. See Cockrell, 933 

S.W.2d at 89; Briones, 12 S.W.3d at 129. We overrule Rodriguez’s point and 

affirm the trial court’s judgments.

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
4

DELIVERED: August 11, 2011