COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00224-CR

DAVID KEITH SAULS JR. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 78TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 58,646-B

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

A jury convicted Appellant David Keith Sauls Jr. of evading arrest or 

detention in a vehicle, and upon his plea of true to two enhancement paragraphs, 

the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years’ confinement. In one point, 

Appellant complains about the State’s closing argument. Because Appellant 

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

forfeited his complaint by not objecting to the argument at trial, we affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.

I. BRIEF FACTS

On the evening of January 14, 2017, Deputy Daniel Jacobson of the 

Wichita County Sheriff’s Office was on patrol when he saw ahead of him a silver 

2012 Nissan Versa with a right brake light out. He caught up with the Nissan 

after it turned left on Old Iowa Park Road, and he activated his patrol car’s 

overhead, flashing lights as he followed the Nissan onto an access road and then 

southbound on the Central Freeway, both of which had improved shoulders. The 

Nissan went past the first available exit, and Deputy Jacobson turned on his 

siren. Without signaling, the Nissan exited to Seymour Highway, moved to the 

far right lane, and turned right at a red light without stopping. The Nissan then 

immediately turned right into an EconoLodge parking lot, made a U-turn, and 

stopped, facing Seymour Highway. The driver, Appellant, got out and began 

running across the highway. He collided with the windshield and passenger-side 

mirror of the patrol car of another deputy arriving to assist Deputy Jacobson, 

landed on the ground, and then tried to run again before the two deputies 

captured and arrested him.

A grand jury indicted Appellant for evading arrest or detention while using 

a vehicle, and the indictment contained two sentence-enhancement paragraphs 

alleging prior felony convictions of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon 

and injury to a disabled person.
3

During trial, at a hearing outside the jury’s presence, the trial court ruled 

admissible for impeachment purposes at guilt Appellant’s prior offenses including 

a 2005 felony conviction for evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and a 

2008 misdemeanor conviction for evading arrest or detention. The trial court 

confirmed at Appellant’s request that the facts of the convictions would be 

admissible but not the underlying details of the crimes. Appellant then testified 

before the jury, claiming that he did not intend to evade arrest in a motor vehicle 

in the present case. The prosecutor asked Appellant about the 2005 and 

2008 evading arrest convictions, and he admitted them. He did not request a 

contemporaneous limiting instruction.

In the State’s closing argument at guilt, the prosecutor stated,

Also in 2005, [Appellant was] convicted of evading arrest or 

detention using a motor vehicle.

In 2008, [he was] convicted of evading arrest or detention as a 

misdemeanor offense on foot.

Ladies and gentlemen, he knows the difference between the 

two of them. He knows what one offense is and what the other 

offense is.

Appellant did not object.

II. DISCUSSION

In his sole point, Appellant complains that in the portion of the jury 

argument quoted above, the State “improperly argued the jury [should] consider 

[his] prior evading convictions in determining the element of intent. The prior 

convictions had been admitted for impeachment purposes only.” Appellant 
4

admits that he did not object to the argument at trial, and, without citing any 

authority for the proposition, argues that “[t]his error is of such a fundamental 

nature that [it] denies [him] due process that this Court cannot ignore.”

Absent an objection to jury argument at trial, nothing is presented for 

review. Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); 

Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 

520 U.S. 1173 (1997). The objection must be timely and specific, and the 

defendant must pursue the objection to an adverse ruling. Mathis v. State, 

67 S.W.3d 918, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Cockrell, 933 S.W.2d at 89; Carter 

v. State, 614 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); see also Tex. R. App. P. 

33.1(a)(1). An objection is timely if it is made as soon as the ground of objection 

becomes apparent. Thompson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 627, 635 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 (1985). Even if an argument is egregious and 

an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm, the complaint is 

forfeited if the defendant did not object. Mathis, 67 S.W.3d at 926–27; see also 

Threadgill, 146 S.W.3d at 667. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s point.

III. CONCLUSION

Having overruled Appellant’s single point, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.
5

/s/ Mark T. Pittman

MARK T. PITTMAN

JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and PITTMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED: June 28, 2018