NO. 07-07 -038 0-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 B DE CE MB ER3, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ BOBB Y J. MITCHEL L, AP PEL LANT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 7-41 579 6; HON. CECIL G. PURYEAR, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QU IN N, C .J. , and C AM PBELL and H AN CO CK , J J. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Bobby

J. M it chel l, w as conv icted o f bail j umping , enh anced bytw o pr ior felony co nv icti o n s, a n d s entenc ed to 60 y ears i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Depa rtme nt of

Cri min al Justice. T hrou gh three issues, appe llant conten ds the trial court c om mi tt ed rev ers i bl e er ror . W e di s ag ree a nd a ffir m.2 Factual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und O n A p ri l 4 , 2 0 0 7 , a p p e ll a n t a p p e a re d in t h e 1 4 0 Di s t ri c t Co u rt o f L u b b o c kCo u n t y, th T exas, to stan d trial for the o f fense of assau lt. At the co nclu s io n o f t h e f ir st day of

trial, appel lan t, w ho had been rele ased from j ail on a personal recog niz ance bond, w as ins tr uct ed to retur n at 9:00 the follo w ing morni ng . On Apr il 5, 2007, the c our t reconv ened, but a ppe lla n t did not appear as ordered by

the tr ial j udg e. Subs eq uentl y , app ell ant w as indicte d for the o f

fense of ba il j um ping. Pat Metze, app ellant ’s attorne y on the assau lt ca se , was in it ia lly ap p o in te d to rep re se n t a p p e lla n t o n th e n e w c h a r g e of ba il ju m p in g. How ev er , M etz e fil ed a moti on to w it hdraw al leg ing that he w as a potent ial w it ness in the bai l jumpi ng ca se. The mot ion w as g ra nted and new co unsel w as appoi nted. Prio r to the bai l jumpi ng tr ial co mmenci ng , M etz e w as subpo enaed t o tes ti fy on beh alf of th e S tate . At a pre-trial hea ring, the trial court ref used to quash Metze’s subpo ena, ru li ng thatM etz e w oul d h a ve to t est ify aboutal l matters e x ceptthos e tha t re lat ed to co mmunic ati ons betw een t he attor ney and cl ien t. At tr ial , Me tz e w as cal led as a w itness o v er app ellant ’s objectio n. Metze testif ied th at ap pellan t w as prese nt for the f irst day of the t ri al but fai led to appear the fol lo wing d a y. F urther , he admitted t hat t he tr ial c o u rth a d a d m o n is h e d a p p e ll a n tt h a th e m u s tr e t u r n t o t h e co u rt ro o m t h e fo ll o win g d a y. The Stat e al so present ed ev ide nce of appell ant’ s rele ase on a personal recog niz ance bond and t he c ondi ti ons of the bond

. The bai li ff for the 140 D is tr ict C our

t al so tes ti fied as to the th ev ents of the first day

of the ass aul t tr ial and appel lan t’ s failu re to appear at the b eg inn ing of the s econd day

of the p ro ceedi ng s.3

After hear ing the ev ide nce, the jur y retur ned a verd ict o f gui lty . The ju ry , after hear ing the ev ide nce re g ardin g puni shment , as ses sed appel lan t’ s punis hment at confine ment for a ter m of 60 y ears in the Inst it uti onal Div is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Criminal Justice . It is from this judgme nt th at ap pellan t app eals. By three i ss ues, appel lan t c ontends that : 1) the ev ide nce is l e g all y i nsuffici ent t o susta in the judgmen t, 2) the trial court erred in perm itting the te s t im o n y of app ellant ’s former att or ney , and 3) the tr ial cour t al low ed th e St ate t o eng ag e i n i mpermi ss ibl e c los ing argume nts th at shifted the bu rden of proof

. W e d isa gree a nd a f f irm the trial court’s jud g ment. Legal Suf f iciency of

the Evidence In ass ess ing the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce, w e re v iew all the ev ide nce in the li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic tt o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r a n y ra t io n a l t ri e r o f fa c t c o u ld h a ve fo u n d t h e e s s e n t ia l e le m e n t s o f t h e o f fe n s e b e yo n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t

. Ja c k s o n v. Vi rg ini a, 44 3 U .S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct . 27 8 1 , 61 L. Ed.2d 560 ( 1979) ; R oss v . St ate, 133 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 20 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)

. In c ond u ct in g a l eg al suffici ency rev iew , an app ellate court ma y

not sit a s a t h irte ent h juror, butrather m ust up hold the jury’ s v erdict unl ess i t i s i rrati onal or

unsuppor

ted bym ore than a mere modi cum of ev ide nce. M oreno v . Stat e, 75 5 S.W .2d 866 , 867 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 8). A person commi ts the o ffense of bail j umping w hen he i s “ law fully rele ased from custo dy, w ith or withoutb ail, on cond ition tha t he sub sequen tly app ear if

he inte ntion ally or knowing ly fails to appe ar in accord ance w ith the term s of his release .” T EX . P EN AL C ODEFur ther referenc e to the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re w il l be by “ art. ___.” 1 “A personal bond is su ff ic ien t i f it inc lud es the req uis it es of a bail bond as setout 2 in Article 17.0 8, except th at no s u re t ie s a re required. In add ition, a person al bon d sha ll cont ain : (1 ) the d efendant’ s n ame, add re ss , and pl ace of employ ment; (2) identif ication informa tion, including the d efend ant ’s: (A ) date and pl ace of bir th; (B) height, w eight, an d color of hair and ey es; (C ) dr iv er ’s l ic ense number and sta te of i ss uance , i f any ; and (D ) nearestrela ti v e’s name an d address , i f any , and (3 ) the fol low ing oath swor n and si g ned by the defendant:

. . . .” 4 A NN . § 38.10( a) (Ver non 200 3)

. Appel lan t’ s p osi ti on i s t hat t he bond upon w hic h he w as re lea sed w as not “ law

ful bai l” and, therefore, the c onv icti on c annot be s ust ain ed. T o arr ive a tt h is co nclusion , app ellantcites the co urt to th e requireme nts for a personal recog niz ance bon d , a s noted in the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re . Se e 1 T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 17.04 (V e rnon 2005)

. Ac cordin g to appel lan t, iti s t he 2 failure of the bo nd to conta in the items listed in paragraph (2)(A)-(D) thatrende rs the ba il unl awfu l

. F o l l o w i n g a p p e l l a n t ’ s t h e o r y t o i t s l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n , t h e m i s s i n g i n fo r ma t i on invalidates th e bo nd, w hich, in tu rn, v itiates a p pellan t’s prom ise to ap pea r. Appellan t’s logic is not pe rsuasive. To t h is e n d , app ellantcites the Cou rt to several cases w hich pur por tedl y su ppor t app ell ant’ s p ro posi ti on th at t he bond i n q uest ion w as not law ful and, t h e re fo re , co u ld n o tb e t h e b a s is o f a b a il ju m p in g c h a rg e . S e e T u rn e r v. S t a t e , 1 4 T e x. Ct . Ap p. 16 8 ( 1883) ( condi ti ons of bond more onerous than permitted bystatut e, t herefore, s u re t y co u ld n o tb e h e ld li a b le in su b s e qu e n tfo rfe it u re a c t io n ); Co s t le y v . S t a t e , 1 4 T e x.5

Ct . Ap p. 15 6 ( 1883) ( forg er y ca se w here ins tr ument forg ed w as bai l bond) ; G ra g g v . St ate, 18 Tex

. Ct . Ap p. 29 5 ( 1885) (ap p e al of for feiture of bai l bond w here bond had bee n a lt e re d wit h o u tkn o wle d ge o r p e rm is s io n o f p ri n c ip a l o r s u re t y); W e gn e r v. S t a t e , 1 8 T e x. Ct . Ap p. 41 9 ( 1890) ( appeal of forfeiture w here bonds were m a teri all y al tered)

. The common de nomina tor

i n three of the cas es w as that itw as an appeal by the surety

after a forfeiture p ro c e e d in g. T he fourth case de alt w ith the particularities of a forgery

case w here the q uest ion w as can y ou hav e a forg er y of an i nv ali d bond. N one of thes e c ases deal t w it h the i ss ue of the v ali dity of a bond in a bai l jumpi ng or fail ure to appear

ca se. T he lan gua ge o f

article 17.0 4 is instructiv e. It stat es tha t “a person al bon d is suffici ent i f it inc lud es the req uis it es of a bail b ond as se t outi n Ar ti cl e 17. 08, .

. . . ” Ar

t. 17.04. Ar

ti cl e 17.08 set s forth si x re q uirements of a bai l bond. See art. 17.08. First , t he bon d mu st be pa y able to the State of Te x as, w hich ap pellan t’s bon d w as. Art. 17 .08 (1). Seco nd , t h e p r i n c i p a l mu s t b i n d h i ms e l f t o a p p e a r b e fo re t h e p ro p e r c o u rt t o a n sw er the charges pen ding. Art. 17. 08(2 ). App ellant prom ised to app ear i nsta nte r in the 140 Distri ct th Co u rtof L u b b o ckCo u n ty, T e xas , t o an swer th e fe lo n y cha rge s t h a t were th e n pe n d in g. T hird, the bon d cle a rl y s t a t e s thatapp ellantw as cha rg ed wi th a felon y . Art. 17.0 8(3). Four th, the b ond mus t cont ain the si g nature of t he pr inc ipa l and his mail ing address . Ar t. 17.08( 4)

. Appel lan t’ s s ig nature appea rs on t he l ine ti tl ed “ pr inc ipa l” and his address is l is ted ben eat h the sig nat ure. Fif th, th e bon d mu st state t he time a nd place w hen the princip al is to ap pe ar an d th e c ou rt be fore w ho m he i s to ap pe ar . Ar t. 17 .0 8( 5)

. Ap pe l l an t’ s bon d is noted as an “ ins tante r” bond, w hic h appell ant admits in hi s b ri ef gi v es proper noti ce of w hen and w here he is to appea r. Se e Euz iere v . St ate, 648 S. W .2d 7 00, 7 02 ( Tex .C ri m.App.6

1983)

. Fi nal ly , t he bond m ustbe condi ti oned that t he pr inc ipa l w il l pay al l neces sar

y and re asona ble ex pense s i ncur re d by the sher iff and othe r peace off ic ers s houl d the y hav e to rearre s tt he p rincipal af ter he fails to app ear. Art. 17 .08 (6). Appe llant’s bo nd e x pressly requires appe llant to pay tho se expense s. Accordin gly , app ellant ’s persona l recogniz ance bond i s s uff ic ien t. Appel lan t c omplai ns that iti s t he l ack of the addi ti onal req uirements l is ted a fter t he lan g uag e reg ardin g the suffici ency of the b ond t hat i nv ali dates the cur re nt bo nd. In s etti ng forth thos e req u ire m e n ts , the s tatut e s peaks i n ter ms of “ shal l cont ain ” and t hen l is ts the it ems of personal i nformati on l ack ing i n appel lan t’ s b ond. Ar t. 17. 0 4 (2 )(A)- (D ). The lan g uag e of the sta tute creates a du ty

. See T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 311.016 ( Ver non 200 5). How ever, “ shall” is l ess on erou s than “must, ” w hi c h create s or recogniz es a condi ti on precede nt. Id. W hen const ru ing statut es, w e must alw ay s remember to cons ide r the statu te as a w hole

. See Helena Chem

. Co. v . W ilkins, 47 S.W .3d 486 , 493 (Tex. 2001 ). T h e wo rd “m u s t ” i s gi ve n m a n d a t o ry m e a n in g wh e n fo ll o we d b y a n o n c o m p li a n c e p e n a lt y. Id. In our ca se, the les ser mandator y “s hal l” is used and t here i s n o nonc ompli ance penal ty cont ain ed w it hin the sta tute. See ar t. 17.04. Ad dit ion all y , c ontai ned w it hin the sta tute and prece ding thatportion conta ining the m and ato ry la n gu age, the statu te sta tes th at “a personal bond is suff ic ien t if” and then sets forth the req uirements prev iou sl y outli ned. So, if w e tak e the st atute as a w hol e, w e c oncl ude t hat t he all eg ed mandator y l ang uag e, “ shal l, ” is merely directive in nat ure. Helena Chem ical Co., 47 S. W .3d 493 . Accordingly , the failure to i ncl ude t he req uired person al infor mati on i n no w ay v it iat es the l eg ali ty

of the p ersonal bond ex ecut ed by

appel lan t.7

A bai l jumpi ng ca se has, as it s cent ra l premis e, that the d efendant w as re lea sed from cus tody on a promis e to appear and faile d to ap pear as req uired. See E uz iere, 64 8 S. W .2d at 70 2. The record before us sh ow s t hat a ppel lan t ex ecut ed a personal recog niz ance bond on M arch 28, 2 007, in w hic h appel lan t promis ed to appear IN STANTERbefore the 140 th Di str ict C our

t of Lubboc k C ounty , Tex as and t hat t he tr ial jud g e w as the j udi ci al off ic er w ho author iz e d t h e personal recog niz ance bond. Fur ther , t he record reflect s t hat, at t he conc lus ion of the first day of tr ial , Ap ri l 4, 20 07, a ppel lan t w as admoni shed by the same t ri al judge tha t the procee dings w ould b e gi n a gain at 9:0 0 a.m . on Ap ril 5, 20 07. The record cl ear ly demonst ra tes that appel lan t did not appear the next mor nin g and has nev er offered any “ re asona ble ex cus e” for faili ng to appear . See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 38 .10 (b) & (c) (V er non 200 3)

. Appel lan t has nev er arg ued that the tr ial j udg e w as not a uthor iz ed to order a p p e lla nt’s release f rom cu stod y , cond itione d up on h is promise to app ear. Accord in gl y, appel lan t w as leg all y

rele ased. As the Stat e poi nts out, the personal bond in q uest ion may not h av e been a model of drafting , how ev er , t he bas icpremis e of an i n st a n te r bond w as there. See W hets tone v . Stat e, No. 06- 07- 00089- CR , 2007 W L 4118918, at *2 ( Tex .App.

– Tex ar kana Nov . 21, 2007, pet. ref’d) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on). A p p e llant w as release d f rom cu stod y

af ter he p romise d to a ppe ar before a spe cif ic court to an sw er a spec ificch arg e. W hen w e v iew

the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict, w e find that a ration al jury

could f ind th at th e Sta te proved all of the esse ntial ele me nts of the of fense beyon d a r e a so nabl e doubt

. Jac ks on, 4 43 U .S. at 31 9; R oss , 133 S.W .3d a t 620

. Acc ordin g ly , app ell ant’ s first is sue is ov er ru led

.8 Testi mony

of Appel lan t’ s F or mer Cou nsel A p p e ll a nt’s cou nsel atthe un derlyi ng assault trial, Pa t Metze, w as originally appoi nted to representappel lan t i n the bai l jumpi ng ca se. Before tr ial , M etz e fil ed a moti on to w it hdraw , w herein he a ll eg ed th at he w as a w it ness in the cas e. This moti on w as g ra nted by the tr ial co urt. The St ate then subpo enaed Me tz e to tes ti fy at the tr ial of t he bai l jumpi ng cas e. The tr ial co urt ov er ru led M etz e’s moti on to q uash the s ubpoena and M etz e tes ti fied ov er appel lan t’ s objecti on. The tr ial co urt r ule d tha t M etz e w oul d hav e to tes ti fy so lon g as the q uestio n s a sk ed di d notper tai n to any

pr iv il eg ed c ommunic ati ons betw een app ell ant a n d h is fo rm e r c o u n s e l. Ap p e ll a n tco n t e n d s t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rte rr e d in co m p e ll in g Me t ze t o t e s t ify. A p p e l l a n ti s cl a i mi n g th a tth e act i o n of t h e t r i a l j u d g e i n c o mp e l l i n g M e t z e t o t e s t i fy w as er ro r. As su ch, appel lan t i s c lai ming er ro r ov er the admis si on or

ex cl usi on of ev ide nce. A tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to admi t or ex cl ude ev ide n ce i s re vi ew ed unde r an abus e of discretio n s t and ard. See Green v. State , 934 S.W .2d 92, 10 1-02 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 6); Mo ntg omery

v . St ate, 810 S. W .2d. 372, 390 ( Tex.Cr im .A p p. 19 90) ( op. o n reh’ g ). A re v iew ing co urt s houl d not re v erse a tr ial jud g e’s deci si on w hose ru li ng w as w it hin the z one of reas onabl e di sag re ement. Green, 934 S. W .2d a t 102

. See als o Guz man v. Sta te, 955 S.W .2d 8 5, 89 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)

. In s uppor

t of hi s p osi ti on, a ppel lan t cit e s thi s c our t t o F lores v . St ate, for th e proposi ti on th at the State offered no compel li ng need for M etz e’s tes ti mony , t herefore, the tr ial co urt er re d i n order ing M etz e t o t e stify

. Fl ores v . St ate, 155 S. W .3d 1 44, 1 48A p p e ll a n tsp e c if ic a ll y a ve rs in h is b ri e f t h a t h e is n o t a ll e gi n g a vio la t io n o f at t o rn e y- 3 cl ien t pr iv il eg e. 9 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)

. How ev er , appell ant misc onst ru es the cour t’ s holdi ng in F lores. I n Fl ores, the Cou rtof Cr imi nal A p p e a ls w as deal ing w it h c ounse l in an ong oin g tr ial bei ng required to test if

y ov er his client’s object ion. Id. at 150 -51. In that ci rcumst ance , the court ruled th at, “Pe rmitting a prose cuto r to ca ll th e de fend ant ’s attorne y as a w itness ‘ine v itably conf uses th e distinct ions betw een advocate and w itness, argumen t and testim ony, [and ] is acc eptabl e onl y

i f req uired by

co mpell ing and leg it imat e need. ’” Id. at 148 ( ci ti ng U nit ed Sta tes v. Schw artzbaum , 527 F.2d 249, 253 ( 2 Cir. 197 5)). It is cl ear tha t the holdin g in nd Fl or es i s l i mi t e d t o a s i t u a t i o n w h e re t h e t e s t i mo n y i s c o mp e l l e d fro m t h e a t t o r n ey represe nting the defend antin the insta nt trial. Such w as no t the circumsta nce in ap pellan t’s tr ial

. Me tz e had prev iou sl y represent ed appell ant, but had w it hdraw n w hen i t bec ame cl ear to M etz e tha t he mig ht be a w it ness . Fur ther , M etz e w as a fact w it ness and w as not c all ed upo n to div ulge any conf iden tial com mu nicatio ns w ith his client. T here fore, th e Flores case is not cont ro ll ing and the Stat e w as not re q uired to s how a c ompell ing and leg it imat e need for M e tze ’s testi mony . Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n order ing Me tz e to answ er

the q uest ion s a sk ed. Green, 934 S. W .2d a t 101 -0 2. 3

Improper Ju ry Arg uments By his third issue, a ppe llant argues th at th e trial court erred in overruling his obj ect ion s t o the Sta te’ s i mprop er j ur y arg ument. Proper

j ur y arg ument fall s i nto four c a t e go ri e s : 1 ) s u m m a t io n o f e vid e n c e p re s e n t e d a t t ri a l, 2 ) re a s o n a b le d e d u c t io n s d ra wn from ev ide nce present ed attri al, 3) answ ers to opposi ng counsel ’s arg ument, or 4) pl easAppel lan t onl y ci tes the las t s entenc e of the arg ument t o s uppor t hi s p osi ti on. 4 10 for l aw e nfo rc em en t. L ag ron e v . Stat e, 9 42 S .W .2 d 60 2, 6 19 ( Tex .C r i m. Ap p. 19 97 )

. To det ermin e w het her juryargumen t prope rly falls w ithin on e of

t hese categories, w e mu st cons ide r the a rg ument in li g ht of the re cord as a w hol e. W il son v . St ate, 938 S. W .2d 5 7, 59, 6 1- 62 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996). T o c o n sti tute re v ersi ble er ro r, the arg ument mus t be extreme o r man ifestly imp rope r, v iolative of a ma nda tory statu te, o r have i njecte d ne w facts, har mf ul to t he ac cus ed, i nto t he tr ial proceed ing s. Id. at 59. The arg ument mus t be cons ide re d w it hin the cont ext in w hic h it appears. Gaddis v. State, 753 S.W .2d 3 96, 3 98 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1988)

. The arg uments thatappel lan t c omplai ns of occu rred dur ing the Stat e’s cl osi ng arg ument. In the first ins tanc e, t he St ate d is cus sed the respon si bil it ies of someone w ho has been rele ased on bai l and s tated : And where he w as supp osed t o be w as in court, b efore Judge Darne ll, just like he prom ised he w ould b e. He p romise d, ‘I wil l a ppe ar b efore y ou. ’ H is g e t- o u t- of-j ail -free c ard, as M r. H og an c all ed i t: ‘I w il l g et ou t of j ail free becau se, y ou k n o w w hat, I am p re sumed inn ocent .’ Y ou bety ou are. But w hen y ou’ re w alk ing around faci ng a felo ny charg e, y ou may

be p re sumed inn ocentbut y ou w il l appear and be re spons ibl e w hen the Cou rttel ls y ou to be. Y ou don’ t j ustg et t o roam around i n the co mmunity free, not hav ing to show up and answ er for y our ch arg es. You get your day in court t o show that you’re innoce nt, buty ou hav e to showup t o do it. 4 At w hich tim e a p p e ll antinterpo sed th e followi ng objectio n: “Object ion, Your Hono r. Cou nsel i s a ttempt ing to undul y sh ift t he burden and presumpt ion of inn ocenc e. The Defendanthas to show noth ing .” The t ri al cour t ov er ru led the obje ct io n . Later, dur ing cl osi ng , t he St ate e ng ag ed i n the foll ow ing arg ument:Th e e mb o l d e n e d p o rt i o n o f t h e a rg u me n ti s t h e p o rt i o n q u o t e d b y a p p e l l a n t ’ s b r i e f. 5 11 The credi bil ity

of the w it ness es, y ou c onsi der ev er ythi ng . The t h in gs y ou don’ t c onsi der

at thi s t ime a re a n y sympat hy y ou may

hav e for him, any w hat- if’s , bec ause if there w as a defense, if he had car trou bl e, i f he had medic al problems , it w ould ha v e had to come from testimony from t he stand

. 5 At t his ti me, appel lan t int er posed the follo w ing obj ect ion : “O bje cti on, Y our H onor . Cou nsel is attem pting to imp licate th e Defend ant ’s ri ght of self-incriminat ion, a nd a sking the Court to con sider his electio n no t to test if y .” On ap peal , appel lan t c lai ms t hat b oth a rg uments att empt t o s hift t he burden of proof and req uire appel lan t t o produce ev ide nce of his i nnoce nce. Fur ther , app ell ant a ll eg es that the a rg uments w ere a c omment on appel lan t’ s fai lure to tes ti fy. In c onnecti on w it h the obj ect ion to the firstq uoted arg ument by the Stat e, appel lan t’ s o bje cti on w ent t o hi s p e rce p tion th at t he St ate was attempt ing to shi ft the burd en o f

proof and nece ssarily

impa ct the presu mp tion of inno cence . Th e objection did not a dv is e the tr ial co urt t hat a ppel lan t percei v ed th e argum e n t t o be a c omment on the failu re of a p p ell ant t o tes ti fy or of his r ig ht ag ain st sel f-in cr imi nati on. As suc h, t he arg ument on appeal does not compor t w it h the obj ect ion , and accordin g ly , t hat p oin t i s n ot prese rv ed for app eal. Se e Dix on v. State , 2 S.W .3d 263 , 273 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 8). T here fore, as to app ellant ’s conte ntion thatthe f irst comm entabridged his rig ht to rema in si len t or w as a c omment on his fail ure to tes ti fy, i t i s o v er ru led

.12

Appel lan t al so cont ends that thi s first arg ument w as an attempt to shi ft the b urden of proof and presum ption of

innoce nce. W e sho uld j udge the argume nt i n the cont ext i n w hich it w as stat ed. Gaddis, 753 S.W .2d at 398. W hen w e do so, w e f ind that the Stat e’s argume nt rem inde d the jury of app ellant ’s presu mp tion o f innoce nce. The ov erall impo rt of t his argu me ntw as t ha t, a l th ou g h ap pe l l an t i s p res um ed i nn oc en t, h e ha d to c om e forw ard to answ er

for the charg es w hic h had been lev ele d agai nst him. W hen w e c onsi der the reco rd a s a w hole , w e can notsaythatthis argumen t w as extreme or man ifestly unfair. W il son, 938 S.W .2d a t 61- 62. As to t he s e co n d a lleged inc ide nt of i mprop er j ur y arg ument, w e mustrev iew the arg ument made by

appel lan t t o pl ace the State’ s c omments in proper perspecti v e. Dur ing app ellant ’s summ ation , coun sel ma de th e followi ng statem ent s: There is no ev ide nce of w here Mr . Mi tch ell w as. The Stat e’s ev ide nce w as sol ely that he w asn’ t in the cour troom at the pla ce, at the ti m e th a t h e w as suppo sed to be , that, therefore, he must hav e k now ing ly and int enti onal ly

not been t here. Y ou hav e to tak e i t a ste p fart her

. T h e y d id not do s o. They did n’tsh ow

thathe k now ing ly

and int enti onal ly

st ay ed a way

from t he c o u rt ro o m t h a td a y. After re v iew ing the arg ument of appell ant, itbecomes c lea r that the S tate’ s a rg ument w as made i n respon se to an d i n ans w er to the a rg ument of appel lan t. The arg ument of the Stat e w as in fact a proper reci tati on of

the burden of

proof. Al l the State w as re q uired to prov e w as th a t a ppel lan t w as not i n c our t as req uired. Therefore, t he St ate’ s a rg ument w as a pe rmissible f inal argume nt. La grone , 942 S.W .2d a t 619

. A ccordingly , w e overrule appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue.13 Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.