Court Opinion

ID: 3194961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-18 07:20:25.835644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:22.361778
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                             ____________________

                              NO. 09-15-00281-CR
                             ____________________

                    KIPP KENNETH LUSTER, Appellant

                                        V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                       Jefferson County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 13-16934
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury convicted Kipp Kenneth Luster of possession of a controlled

substance and assessed a punishment of twenty years in prison. In one appellate

issue, Luster complains of the trial court’s decision to grant one of the State’s

challenges for cause. During voir dire, potential juror number one stated that she

could not give a young man a sentence of ninety-nine years for a drug offense, and

she expressed a belief that drug-related offenses are overcharged and the sentences

                                        1
excessive. The trial court granted the State’s challenge for cause to juror one.

Luster did not object to the trial court’s ruling. 1

       “A party must object to the granting of a challenge for cause before he can

complain of that action on appeal.” Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79, 88 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2002); see Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)

(Having failed to object at trial, appellant’s complaints that the trial court erred by

sustaining the State’s challenges for cause were not preserved.); see also Ham v.

State, 355 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, pet. ref’d) (“Improper

dismissal for cause requires objection.”). Because Luster failed to object when the

trial court granted the State’s challenge for cause, his sole issue is not preserved for

appellate review and is overruled. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

       AFFIRMED.

                                                 ______________________________
                                                        STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                            Chief Justice

       1
       We note that potential jurors who state they cannot consider the full range
of punishment may properly be struck for cause. See Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d
217, 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (“The State may challenge for cause a venire
member” who has a bias or prejudice against . . . any phase of the law on which the
State is entitled to rely for conviction or punishment. Jurors must be able to
consider the full range of punishment provided by law for the crime charged.”)
(footnotes omitted).
                                             2
Submitted on April 6, 2016
Opinion Delivered April 13, 2016
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                       3