IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13-00397-CR
KENTHONY JEVELLE JACKSON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 85th District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 11-00396-CRF-85
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kenthony Jevelle Jackson was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to
23 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(2)(B) (West 2011). Jackson
contends in his sole issue that the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenge to the
State's use of a peremptory strike against Juror 8, an African-American man. See Batson
v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986). The State specified that it
struck Juror 8 because numerous members of the prospective juror’s family had been
prosecuted by the District Attorney’s Office and because he had lived in the same house
with his uncle, who the State had also prosecuted. Jackson conceded at trial that the
State’s reasons for striking Juror 8 were race-neutral; and, once the State proffers race-
neutral explanations for its peremptory strikes, the burden is on the defendant to
convince the trial court that the prosecution's reasons were not race-neutral. Ford v.
State, 1 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Our standard of review is whether the
trial court’s ruling was clearly erroneous. Grant v. State, 325 S.W.3d 655, 657 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2010).
Jackson contends on appeal, however, that the strike was pre-textual because the
State never inquired of the other venire members whether any had family members that
had been prosecuted by the District Attorney’s office. In a similar situation, the Court
of Criminal Appeals interpreted United States Supreme Court precedent as not
requiring such further inquiry. See Grant v. State, 325 S.W.3d 655, 661 (Tex. Crim. App.
2010). That interpretation is binding on this Court, and therefore the State was not
required to inquire any further to validate or invalidate, confirm or refute the basis
stated for its own peremptory strike. We cannot say the trial court’s decision in
overruling Jackson’s Batson challenge was clearly erroneous. Jackson’s sole issue is
overruled.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Jackson v. State Page 2
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed January 22, 2015
Do not publish
[CRPM]
Jackson v. State Page 3