Court Opinion

ID: 9777546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:15:02.528109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:56.072211
License: Public Domain

MANSFIELD, Judge,
concurring.
With respect to the disposition of Point of Error Number Two, this Court recently held that parole is not a proper consideration for jurors in a capital case, and therefore they do not have to be instructed as to how many calendar years an individual must serve before he becomes eligible for parole if he receives a life sentence instead of death. Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); Smith v. State, 898 S.W.2d 838, 845-853 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 131, 133 L.Ed.2d 80 (1995). Accordingly, appellant was not entitled to question venirepersons regarding the minimum amount of time appellant would have to serve before becoming eligible for parole. Appellant, furthermore, was not entitled to the instruction he did receive at the punishment phase that he would have to serve thirty-five calendar years before he would be eligible for parole though, as appellant did not object at trial and, indeed, invited the error, he cannot complain of this error on appeal. Therefore, the trial court would have abused his discretion had it permitted appellant to question venirepersons as to how many years appellant would have to serve before becoming eligible for parole.
With these comments, I join the opinion of the Court.