NO. 07-08 -005 5-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C NO VEM BER13, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ CE SARAN GEL DU RA N, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 18 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; ST NO. 169 17-B; HON. JOHN B. BOA RD, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. Ce s a r A n ge l D u ra n wa s co n vic t e d o n fo u r c o u n t s o f in d e c e n c y wi t h a ch il d a n d two coun ts of

agg rav ate d sexual assau lt. He seeks rev ersal by cont end ing that the trial court er re d i n 1) fail ing to ins tr uctthe jur y that“ itw as improper

for t he Prosec utor

to, i n c los ing argum ent a t t he g uil t/i nnoce nce phase , c haract er iz e the D efendant’ s n on- tes ti monial demeanor

dur ing the tr ial i n a w ay that w oul d lead to an inference of gu il t,” and 2) fail ing2

to sust ain his objection to the S tate ’s referen ce to his silence d uring closing argume nt in the p uni shmentphas e. W e aff ir m the jud g ment. Iss ue 1 - Com m ent o n D em eanor W it h reg ard to the fai lure to proper ly i nst ru ct the j ur

y reg ardin g co nsi derati o n of appel lan t’ s n on- tes ti monial demeanor , t he record ill ust ra tes thatappel lan t obj ect ed to the arg ument, w hic h objec ti on the tri al cour t sust ain ed. Then, w hen appell ant a sk ed “ for an ins tr u ct io n ,” t h e one g iv en by the cour

t t ended t o c ontradi ct it s d eci si on to su sta in the obj ect ion . Y et, appel lan t did not object to the ins tr uct ion . Con seq uentl y , hi s c omplai nt w as w aiv ed. See C ock

re ll v. Sta te, 933 S. W .2d 7 3, 89 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996) ( hol din g thata li ti g ant mus t obj ectto preser v e the al leg ed er ro r for rev iew ). Atthe v er y l east , an obj ect ion notonly w ould have g iv en th e trial court op portu nity to ad dress the inconsiste ncy butit also w oul d hav e hel ped cl ar ify or ex pla in w hat i t actual ly i ntended . Thus, the i ss ue i s w aiv ed. Iss ue 2 - Im

pr oper Ju ry Ar gum ent Appel la nt ne xt arg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d i n “ all ow ing ” the S tate to refer t o appel lan t’ s si len ce dur ing its cl osi ng . W hil e appell ant objected to the utterance, he d id not do s o unt il the Stat e had finis hed i ts arg umen t. Ye t, an obj ect ion mustbe a ss erted cont emporaneous ly

w it h or as soon as poss ibl e after the w ro ng oc curs; if i t i s n ot, then the compl ain t is w aiv ed. Star ks v. Sta te, 252 S.W .3d 704, 706 (Tex
. App.–A mari ll o 2008, no pet.) ; accord , Cun nin gham v. State , 848 S.W .2d 8 98, 9 05 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1993, pet . ref ’d) (stating that an object ion m ade af ter the argumen t is u n t ime ly ). Because appel lan t w ait ed unt il the end of the Stat e’s arg ument t o v oic e hi s o bje cti on, h e w aiv ed th e pur por ted e rror . The is sue is ov er ru led .3

Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.
. Pe r Cur iam
Do not p ubl is h.