Court Opinion

ID: 9840101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 07:09:39.093727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:31.236118
License: Public Domain

In The

                         Court of Appeals

             Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                          __________________

                         NO. 09-21-00346-CR
                         NO. 09-21-00347-CR
                         NO. 09-21-00348-CR
                         NO. 09-21-00349-CR
                          __________________

                ROY WELTON KIRTLEY, Appellant

                                  V.

                 THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

            On Appeal from the 221st District Court
                   Montgomery County, Texas
        Trial Cause Nos. 19-12-17066-CR, 21-04-04794-CR,
               19-12-17068-CR, and 19-12-17067-CR
__________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

     To resolve the issues in this appeal we must decide whether the

trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on two defenses that the

Appellant, Roy Welton Kirtley, argues were raised by the evidence in his

trial. In issue one, Kirtley argues the trial court erred by failing to

                                   1
instruct the jury on his defense of property claim, instructions that relate

to Kirtley’s theory that the evidence shows he was justified in using force

when he sought to retrieve money in a zip-up bag from his then

girlfriend—call her Farah—who had snatched the bag from out of his

hand.1 In issue two, Kirtley argues the trial court erred in failing to

submit his necessity defense in the case involving his conviction for

illegally possessing a firearm. His argument depends on the theory that

even though Kirtley as a convicted felon couldn’t possess a gun, he needed

to retrieve a pistol from another bedroom to defend himself from Farah’s

sixteen-year-old son, who had fled from the master bedroom after

stabbing Kirtley in the arm with a knife. 2

     As to Kirtley’s first issue, we conclude that after considering the

entire record, Kirtley, was not actually harmed by the omission of his

defense-of-property theory in the charge. As to issue two, we note that

     1
       Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.41 (Protection of One’s Own Property).
As for the names of the alleged victims of the assaults, which led to the
appellant’s convictions, we have used pseudonyms to protect their
privacy. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 30 (granting crime victims “the right to
be treated with fairness and with respect to the victims’ dignity and
privacy throughout the criminal justice process”).
     2
       Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.22 (Necessity); id. § 46.04 (Unlawful
Possession of a Firearm).
                                      2
necessity is a confession and avoidance defense, which requires the

defendant to have admitted engaging in the conduct before benefitting

from a charge that includes instructions on a necessity claim. Because

the record doesn’t show Kirtley ever admitted he was in possession of a

firearm, we hold the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the jury

on Kirtley’s necessity defense.

     We will affirm.

                                  I. Background

A. The assault that led to the fourth indictment, which alleges that Kirtley
   choked Farah (family strangulation).

     In two issues, Kirtley asks the Court to reverse and remand two of

the four judgments from which he appealed, the judgment for assaulting

Farah by hitting her with his hand (trial court cause number 21-04-

04794-CR), and the judgment on his conviction for unlawfully possessing

a firearm (trial court cause number 19-12-17068-CR).

     The following discussion of the evidence views the evidence in the

light that is most favorable to the jury’s verdict. 3 When viewed in that

light, the evidence shows that in December 2019, Kirtley was living with

     3
         Couthren v. State, 571 S.W.3d 786, 789 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019).

                                      3
his then girlfriend, Farah, in Magnolia, Texas. There were four others

living in the home in December 2019: (1) Farah’s son, Chip, a “repo

driver” who was at work when the altercation occurred; (2) Farah’s

sixteen-year-old son, David, who was asleep on a couch in the living room;

(3) David’s seventeen-year-old friend, Jake, who was also asleep in the

living room; (4) and a nineteen-year-old teenager, Julian, who was

listening to music in his bedroom in the home. Julian testified that based

on his relationship with Farah’s sons, Farah treated him as a member of

her family.

     During the trial, Farah testified that Kirtley didn’t come home on

December 19, 2019, until around 4:30 a.m. According to Farah, when she

woke up that morning, she saw Kirtley and told him he was late for work.

Then, she took Kirtley’s phone into the bathroom. When she examined

the messages on his phone, she found texts and pictures, leading her to

believe that Kirtley had been with other women.

     That discovery, along with what Farah described as a relationship

that had been rough, led to an argument. During the argument, Farah

told Kirtley she was ending the relationship. Farah also told Kirtley that

he needed to leave. Kirtley responded, Farah said, by yelling and

                                    4
screaming. According to Farah, “that’s when he [ ] shoved me up against

the wall.” Farah testified that when Kirtley had her pinned to the wall,

he put his hands around her neck and choked her until she became dizzy

and thought she was about to pass out.

     David and Jake, who both testified in the trial, explained they were

in the living room and asleep when they heard Farah and Kirtley arguing

in their bedroom. Both testified that when they entered the bedroom

Farah and Kirtley shared, they saw Kirtley holding Farah against the

wall, choking her with his hands.

     David testified that because he was afraid Kirtley would “end

up…hurting [Farah] really bad,” he grabbed a knife and stabbed Kirtley

in the arm. David explained that Farah then pushed Kirtley off of her

and onto the bed. David added that Kirtley then cursed and threatened

to kill them all. David, Jake, and Farah left the bedroom and entered the

living room. From there, David and Jake left the house through the front

door after they heard a gun go off in the hall. Police recovered a recording

from the front dash-camera of Chip’s truck, which Chip had left parked

facing the steps near the front stairs of Farah’s home. Police also

recovered footage from a camera in Chip’s truck that shows what

                                     5
occurred from behind. Footage from both cameras was admitted into

evidence in the trial.

     When David and Jake opened the front door of the house, they are

seen in the video running off the porch. Both video recordings have audio,

and the recordings capture Kirtley hitting Farah with his hand outside

Farah’s home.

B. The third indictment, which alleges that on or about December 20,
   2019, and before the fifth anniversary of being released from his
   confinement on a felony conviction Kirtley intentionally or knowingly
   possessed a firearm.

     Kirtley argues the jury heard some evidence from which it could

have inferred that Kirtley feared David stabbing him again, noting that

David never testified “he would not have stabbed [Kirtley] again if he

attempted to choke or otherwise assault [Farah] in his presence[.]” That

said, the issue Kirtley raises in his appeal is that the trial court didn’t

instruct the jury on a defense of necessity in the case resulting in his

conviction for illegally possessing a firearm; Kirtley did not raise a claim

of self-defense to the indictment charging him with illegal possession of

a firearm. As we explain below, the evidence before the jury did not show

that Kirtley ever admitted possessing a gun.

                                     6
     The first police officer on the scene was Trooper Brit Lopez, a

highway patrolman employed by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Trooper Lopez was assigned to patrol the area around Magnolia, Texas,

in December 2019. When he arrived, Lopez noticed that Kirtley had “a

bunch of blood” on the sleeve of his shirt. According to Trooper Lopez,

when he saw Kirtley he placed a tourniquet on Kirtley’s right arm, but

before doing so, he said, he “made sure” Kirtley didn’t have a gun.

     Importantly, we find nothing in the evidence before the jury that

shows Kirtley ever admitted to having a gun. Instead, the record shows

Kirtley pleaded not guilty to the charge, and he didn’t testify in his trial.

Thus, the question is whether there is something else, such as footage

from a body camera worn by the officer who interviewed Kirtley at the

scene that shows Kirtley possessed a firearm on or about December 20,

2019, as alleged in the indictment.

     During the investigation conducted by the police, Kirtley denied

owning a gun. Trooper Lopez’s body-cam footage shows that when he

approached Kirtley, he asked “Where’s the gun at? Be honest with me,

you know we’re going to find it.” While sitting on the ground, Kirtley

responds: “What gun?” Then, Trooper Lopez said: “You didn’t pull a gun

                                      7
out?” Kirtley answered: “I don’t own a gun.” After that, Kirtley gave

Trooper Lopez his account about what happened in the home. In the

body-cam footage, Kirtley admits hitting Farah when the two of them

argued, but he never admits in the recordings admitted into evidence or

in any other evidence before the jury that he had a gun.

     Jacob Currington, a deputy employed by the Montgomery County

Sherriff’s office, found Kirtley’s pistol after spotting it through a hole in

a fence dividing Farah’s property from the property next door. When

Currington was called by the State, he testified he “did not” interview

Kirtley. On cross-examination, Kirtley’s attorney asked Deputy

Currington: “Now, when you were on the scene, did you ever see Roy

Kirtley in possession of a firearm?” Deputy Currington responded that

he did not.

     Kirtley rested without calling any witnesses. In closing argument,

Kirtley’s attorney didn’t argue that Kirtley possessed a firearm.4

     4
         Kirtley’s attorney didn’t make an opening statement.
                                      8
C. The assault that led to the first indictment, which alleges that Kirtley
   threatened Julian with a deadly weapon.

     Julian, who also testified in the trial, explained that when he heard

the commotion in Farah’s and Kirtley’s room from his bedroom, he looked

out from his bedroom door into the hallway to see what was going on. He

noticed Kirtley in the hall. Julian testified that when he stepped into the

hall, he saw Kirtley coming toward him with a pistol in his hand. Julian

added that when Kirtley approached him, Kirtley said: “[Y]ou want some,

you want some[?]” Then, Kirtley fired the pistol, but the bullet struck the

floor near Julian’s foot. Kirtley ran out of the house through a back door.

Then, Julian then ran out of the house and also went into the back yard.

According to Julian, Kirtley turned around and shot toward him “two or

three more times.” According to Julian, he then ran “toward the front

yard.”

D. The second indictment, which charges Kirtley with the assaulting
   Farah by hitting her with his hand.

     After Kirtley fired the pistol in the hallway, David and Jake fled

the house through the front door and crossed the street. From there,

David called the police. The dash-cam footage from Chip’s truck shows

what happens at Farah’s house in the next approximately nine minutes

                                    9
outside Farah’s house on her front porch and in her front yard. Farah

(when in view of the camera) spends part of her time talking on her

cellphone, either in her front yard or inside the house. At trial, Farah

testified she was talking to Chip on the phone. When Kirtley and Farah

are on the front porch and standing near the front door, Kirtley hit Farah

in the head with his hand.

     Subsequently, Kirtley is seen in the recording standing near Chip’s

truck with a small bag his hand. Farah walked toward him and told her

“give me my money” six times before she snatched the small bag out of

his left hand. He responds, hitting Farah on the right side of her head

with his left hand. Some of Kirtley’s statements in the recording are not

audible in the footage taken from Chip’s truck, but the recording

captured the altercation the two of them had over the bag Kirtley was

holding in his hand.

     After Kirtley hit Farah in the face, Farah repeatedly said: “Get

away, just leave the property.” After Kirtley hit Farah, she still has the

zip-up bag in her hand. It also doesn’t appear that Kirtley made any

further effort to recover the bag. Instead, he cursed Farah repeatedly,

complaining about her son David. He responds to her demand that he

                                   10
leave, saying: “You want to take every dollar I got and then leave the

property?” To be sure, on direct examination the prosecutor asked Farah

whether she remembered why Kirtley “was trying to take your money?”

Farah answered: “Because he said it was his.”

     In his brief, Kirtley agrees that the jury could have found him guilty

of assaulting Farah with his hand based on the evidence the jury heard

for either the assault on the porch or the assault when he hit her after

she snatched the small bag from his left hand. Kirtley also agrees that of

these two assaults, only the second is relevant to his defense-of-property

claim. That said, Kirtley suggests that because the jury could have

convicted him of committing either assault, he had a right to have the

jury instructed on his claim that he was justified in using reasonable

force to recover his money from Farah after she snatched the zip-up bag

from his hand.

     As mentioned, Kirtley didn’t testify in the trial. Only two of the

State’s witnesses—Farah and Jake—addressed who the money belonged

to that Kirtley and Farah were fighting over during the trial. On direct

examination, the prosecutor asked Farah: “Whose money [(referring to

the money in the zip-up bag in the recording)] was that?” Farah

                                   11
answered: “It was mine.” Farah also described the bag they were fighting

over as a “Michael Kors zip-up bag.” According to Farah, the zip-up bag

was in her purse in the master bedroom when Kirtley took it. Farah

testified Kirtley removed the bag from her purse without her permission.

      Jake (David’s friend) testified the zip-up bag       was “her money

bag[.]” According to Jake, he knew the bag belonged to Farah because

when “she cashed a check, that’s the money that she would give us money

out of.”

      The record shows the jury heard testimony that Kirtley admitted

hitting Farah at least twice on December 20. First, Kirtley admitted

hitting her in the footage the jury viewed that was from Trooper Lopez’s

body camera. Second, Lopez’s attorney admitted Kirtley struck Farah in

closing argument. He said: “The video shows [Kirtley] hitting [Farah]

after [Farah] steals, what is in dispute, the moneybag.”

      When the parties rested, Kirtley asked the trial court to instruct

the jury on two defenses: (1) his claim that he had a right to protect his

property (the money in the zip-up bag) from being taken by Farah; and

(2) his claim that despite his status as a felon, it was necessary under the

circumstances that he have a firearm because David had stabbed him

                                    12
with a knife. The trial court overruled Kirtley’s requests. After

deliberating on its verdict, the jury found Kirtley guilty of committing the

four felonies, as charged in the indictments.

     Kirtley appealed all four convictions, but then challenged only two

of the convictions in his brief: (1) the judgment in trial court cause

number 21-04-04794-CR, the conviction tied to Kirtley’s indictment for

striking Farah with his hand;5 and (2) the judgment in trial court cause

number 19-12-17068-CR, the conviction tied to Kirtley’s indictment for

illegally possessing a firearm.6

     In his first issue, Kirtley complains that on his conviction for

assaulting Farah with his hand, the trial court erred in failing to instruct

the jury on his defense of property claim. In his second issue, Kirtley

argues that in his conviction for illegally possessing a firearm, he was

harmed because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on his necessity

defense.

     5Id. § 22.01(b)(2)(A).
     6
       Id. § 46.04(a)(1). Kirtley didn’t challenge his convictions under
indictments charging him with the two felony-aggravated assaults, the
judgment in trial court cause number 19-12-17066-CR (the judgment
based on his conduct for shooting at Julian), and the judgment in trial
court cause number 19-12-17067-CR (the judgment based on his conduct
for choking Farah).
                                    13
     Because we conclude that Kirtley’s issues lack merit, we will affirm.

                          II.   Standard of Review

     Unless a defendant pleads guilty, the trial court in a criminal trial

must provide the jury with “a written charge distinctly setting forth the

law applicable to the case[.]” 7 Under Texas law, the “defendant is entitled

to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether

that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and

regardless of how the trial court views the credibility of the defense.” 8 For

that reason, instructing the jury on a “defense is supported (or raised) by

the evidence if there is some evidence, from any source, on each element

of the defense that, if believed by the jury, would support a rational

inference that that element is true.” 9 In determining whether the

evidence admitted in a trial raises a defense, we view the evidence in the

light most favorable to the defendant’s request that the trial court

provide the jury with instructions on the claimed defense.10 When

conducting our review, the reviewing court relies on its “judgment,

     7Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.14.
     8Maciel    v. State, 631 S.W.3d 720, 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)
(cleaned up).
      9Id.
      10Id.

                                     14
formed in the light of its own common sense and experience, as to the

limits of rational inference from the facts proven” in the trial. 11

      Kirtley argues the evidence before the jury required the jury to

provide the jury instructions on his defense of necessity and his defense

that he it was his money that he trying to recover from Farah. The

question is whether there is some evidence raising one or both defenses.

If not, we will affirm. If so, we must then determine whether the trial

court’s error harmed Kirtley after applying the “some harm” standard.12

      When reviewing a record for “some harm,” the harm that results to

the defendant from the error must be “actual, rather than merely

theoretical.”13 In evaluating for harm, a reviewing court considers these

four factors when assessing whether the omission of the proper

instructions led to causing the defendant to suffer some harm: “(1) the

entire jury charge, (2) the state of the evidence, (3) the jury arguments,

      11Id.
      12Trevino v. State, 100 S.W.3d 232, 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); see

also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.19.
      13Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

(cleaned up).
                                   15
and (4) if applicable, any other relevant information as revealed by the

record as a whole.” 14 “Neither party bears the burden to show harm.” 15

                          III.   Defense of Property

     Under Texas law, a person may be justified in using force to recover

their property if there is some evidence admitted during the trial that

raises a defense on a protection-of-property defense. Kirtley’s claim is

that Farah wrongfully took money from him that rightfully belonged to

him, and he immediately responded by using reasonable force when he

tried to take it back. Under Texas law:

             A person unlawfully disposed of land or tangible,
          moveable property by another is justified in using force
          against the other when and to the degree the actor
          reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to .
          . . recover the property if the actor uses the force
          immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession
          and:

            (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
                claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

            (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by
                using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. 16

     14
       Campbell v. State, 664 S.W.3d 240, 245 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022).
     15
       Id.
     16Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.41(b).

                                  16
      In Kirtley’s first issue, he argues the trial court erred in failing to

instruct the jury that he had the right to use reasonable force in

retrieving what the jury could have reasonably concluded was his money

in the zip-up bag from Farah after Farah took it from him without his

consent. Kirtley, however, didn’t testify in his trial, so he ties his claim of

ownership to Farah’s testimony that “he said it was his.” He also argues

that there is evidence that he had more money in the house in a safe,

which he didn’t take that day. We disagree with Kirtley, however that

the jury heard any testimony that the money in the safe belonged to him.

To the contrary, the only testimony we find in the record about that

money is Farah’s, and she testified the money in the safe was money that

she “was saving.”

      That said, while weak, we concede that Farah’s testimony amounts

to some evidence from which some jurors could have reasonably

concluded the money in the zip-up bag was Kirtley’s. The footage from

Chip’s truck didn’t record every word of what Kirtley and Farah said to

one another that morning, so Farah’s admission that Kirtley claimed the

money was his is some evidence that it was his money. When trial courts

are deciding whether an instruction is required on a defense, they must

                                      17
submit an issue on the defense if the evidence raises the defense whether

that evidence is strong, weak, impeached, or contradicted, and even if the

trial court doesn’t think the testimony is “worthy of belief.”17

     Kirtley’s response to having the zip-up bag taken from him was

immediate, as the recording shows he immediately hit Farah when she

took the bag. On this record, the evidence raises a fact issue on whether

the money was Kirtley’s and whether the force he used was reasonable.

Consequently, the trial court should have allowed the jury to instruct the

jury on the elements of Kirtley’s defense-of-property claim. Having found

error, we now must determine whether Kirtley suffered some harm. We

conclude the answer is no for these five reasons.

     First, the evidence that Kirtley believed the money belonged to him

was weak, at best. Kirtley argues that even though he didn’t testify the

money was his, the jury could have inferred that it was because Farah

testified that she thought he was trying to take the money from her

because he said, “it was his.” But the recording from Chip’s dash-cam

video doesn’t show that’s what Kirtley said. What he said was: “You want

     17
        Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007);
Johnson v. State, 271 S.W.3d 359, 362 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, pet.
ref’d).
                                   18
to take every dollar I got and then leave the property[.]” In our opinion,

that statement is much more ambiguous about whether Kirtley was

making a direct claim about the money in the zip-up bag, or whether the

statement was instead just a general observation about how he wouldn’t

be left with much if he had to leave. Farah may have interpreted the

attorney’s question as one asking her about her state of mind, why she

thought he was claiming it was his money rather than asking her to

testify about what he said.

     Second, only two witnesses—Farah and Jake—testified about who

the money belonged to in the zip-up bag. At trial, Farah, an assistant

manager at a gas station, told the jury the zip-up bag was hers, and the

money in it came from the money she had worked for. When Jake

testified, he told the jury that when Farah cashed checks, she placed the

money in the zip-up bag. Jake added that when he or David would then

need some money, Farah took money from the zip-up bag and gave it to

them. Jake also testified that Kirtley never put any of his money in the

zip-up bag. When Kirtley’s attorney asked Jake whether Kirtley hit

Farah because he “had been stabbed with a deadly weapon and . . . been

robbed[,]” Jake answered: “Well, it wasn’t his money. So no, sir.”

                                   19
     Third, the overwhelming evidence at trial shows that when Kirtley

hit Farah in the head after she snatches the zip-up bag from him, he isn’t

trying to recover the bag. After Kirtley hit Farah, he doesn’t reach for the

bag. When Farah staggers back from Kirtley’s blow, she still has the zip-

up bag in her hands. After that, Kirtley approached Farah several more

times, continued to curse her, and she continued demanding that he

leave. In the footage from the recording, Kirtley never demands that

Farah turn “his” money over to him. After Farah take the zip-up bag from

him, he made no further effort to recover what he claims was his. Kirtley

also didn’t leave the property but he there until the police arrived. Had

the money belonged to Kirtley as he claimed, he fails to explain why he

didn’t make any further effort to recover the money since his first attempt

failed, and he and Farah were still there.

     Fourth, the assault Kirtley challenges is the last of four assaults

that the evidence shows Kirtley committed that day. The three prior

assaults involved one that occurred in the bedroom, where Kirtley choked

Farah, one in the hall, where he shot a gun at Julian, and one on the

porch where Kirtley hit Farah in the head. Thus, the context of Kirtley’s

                                    20
behavior as it relates to the zip-up bag is that his conduct was about

injuring Farah, not his desire to recover money from her that day.

     Fifth, Kirtley agrees the evidence shows that when he and Farah

were on the porch standing near the door, he hit Farah in the head with

his hand. He agrees the evidence in his trial shows the jury could have

convicted him of committing the assault under the indictment in trial

court cause 21-04-04794-CR based on the evidence tied to the assault on

the porch. The record shows the State argued the jury could convict him

for the assault on the porch or the assault in the yard. Thus, the evidence

in Kirtley’s trial supports an independent theory of conviction on which

Kirtley’s defense-of-property theory doesn’t apply.

     Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude the trial

court’s error in omitting defense-of-property instructions from the charge

were harmless. On this record, Kirtley claim he was harmed is

theoretical, not actual. For that reason, we conclude that Kirtley has not

shown he suffered “some harm.”18 We overrule Kirtley’s first issue.

     18Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (op.

on reh’g).
                                    21
                         IV.    Necessity Instruction

     In his second issue, Kirtley complains that on his conviction for

unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon, the trial court erred in failing

to instruct the jury on his necessity defense because “[s]ufficient evidence

and testimony were produced at trial that created a question of whether

Appellant reasonably believed his conduct with a firearm was

immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm after being stabbed with

a knife.” Specifically, Kirtley argues “[t]here is a question of fact for the

jury as to whether Appellant was justified in possessing a firearm from

future assaults by [David] with a knife.”

     As to the defense of necessity, the Penal Code provides:

     Conduct is justified if:

         (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
         immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
         (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm
         clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of
         reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the
         law proscribing the conduct; and
         (3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
         claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly
         appear. 19

     19Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.22.

                                     22
“The legislature has not excluded the justification of necessity as a

defense to the offense of possession of a firearm by a felon.” 20

     “Necessity is a confession-and-avoidance defense requiring the

defendant to admit his otherwise illegal conduct.”21 “To be entitled to a

defensive instruction for necessity, a defendant must put on evidence

that essentially admits to every element of the offense, including the

culpable mental state.” 22 “In other words, a defendant cannot both invoke

necessity and flatly deny the charged conduct.” 23

     Kirtley denied owning a gun during the investigation conducted by

police, pleaded not guilty to the indictment for illegal possession of a

firearm, and our review of the record reflects there was no evidence

admitted in his trial that he possessed a gun. At trial, Kirtley’s attorney

never admitted Kirtley possessed a firearm, waiving opening statement

and in closing the attorney never said anything about Kirtley having

possessed a gun. On this record, we conclude Kirtley wasn’t entitled to

invoke a necessity defense. We overrule Kirtley’s second issue.

     20Vasquez v. State, 830 S.W.2d 948, 950 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
     21
        Maciel, 631 S.W.3d at 723.
     22
        Id. (cleaned up).
     23
        Id.
                                     23
                             Conclusion

     Having overruled Kirtley’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s

judgments in trial court causes 09-21-00346-CR, 09-21-00347-CR, 09-21-

00348-CR, and 09-21-00349-CR.

     AFFIRMED.

                                                HOLLIS HORTON
                                                   Justice

Submitted on June 28, 2023
Opinion Delivered September 13, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

                                 24