Court Opinion

ID: 9771028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:29:18.661011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:23.913839
License: Public Domain

BAIRD, Judge,
concurring.
Appellant introduced expert testimony that his blood alcohol concentration was 0.13 or 0.14 at the time of the of the commission of the offense. Prior to the jury’s punishment deliberations, appellant, apparently relying on Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 8.04, made the following request:
We would request that the following charge be added to the Penry instruction.1
... “Our Penal Code provides that evidence of temporary insanity caused by intoxication may be introduced by the actor in mitigation of the penalty attached to the offense for which he is being tried. Therefore, you are instructed that you shall consider temporary insanity caused by voluntary intoxication ... if you find that such temporary insanity existed ... as a factor to be considered in relation to the above instructions.... ”
The trial judge denied the request.
In his third point of error, appellant contends the trial judge erred in failing to charge the jury that they could consider appellant’s intoxication as a mitigating factor.2 Appellant’s point of error is based exclusively on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and their interpretation by the United States Supreme Court. See generally, Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989). However, appellant’s brief does not even mention Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 8.04. Therefore, appellant’s third point of error is not preserved for our review because it does not comport with his request at trial. Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), and Zimmerman v. State, 860 S.W.2d 89, 103 (Tex.Cr.App.1993) (Baird, J., concurring). Accordingly, the majority errs in reaching the merits of appellant’s third point of error.
With these comments, I join the opinion as it relates to points' of error one and two and concur in the disposition of the third point of error.
CAMPBELL and MALONEY, JJ., join this opinion.

. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), was decided on June 26, 1989. The instant offense was committed on January 26, 1991.
Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis is supplied.

. Appellant’s third point of error states:
The trial court erred in failing to charge the jury that they could consider the issue of intoxication on the issue of mitigation of punishment.