Sherrick Dwayne Ringer v. State

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH

 

NO. 2-03-146-CR

 
 

SHERRICK DWAYNE RINGER                                                  APPELLANT

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                  STATE

 

------------

 

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

 

------------

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

 

-----------

        A jury convicted Appellant Sherrick Dwayne Ringer of four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen and sentenced him to fifty years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant brings a single point on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his Batson2 challenge to the State’s exercise of a peremptory strike against a black veniremember.  Because we hold that the trial court did not err, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

        The prosecutor struck Chris E. Onyeador, a black veniremember.  Appellant lodged his Batson challenge, and the trial court asked the State to explain the use of its peremptory challenge.  The reasons the prosecutor provided were: (1) the veniremember’s name gave her reason to believe that he was born outside this country; (2) his accent gave her the impression that he was from Africa; (3) his accent was so “incredibly heavy” that she could not “understand most of what he said”; (4) she had concerns as to whether he would be able to understand English sufficiently; and (5) he looked “a little . . . lost” a couple of times.

        Appellant argues that the prosecutor’s first two reasons are race-based and that the remaining three are unsupported by the record.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that nationality is a race-neutral reason for striking a veniremember.3  Based on this reasoning, we are compelled to hold that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s Batson challenge.4

        We overrule Appellant’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

 

 

                                                                  LEE ANN DAUPHINOT
                                                                  JUSTICE

 
 

PANEL A:   LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and MCCOY, JJ.

 

DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

 

DELIVERED:  May 13, 2004


 

NOTES

1.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2.  Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986).

3.  Wamget v. State, 67 S.W.3d 851, 859 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that the country of one's birth, standing alone, is race-neutral).

4.  See Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (holding that because the State offered race-neutral motives for its strike, and appellant failed to rebut those motives, the trial court did not err).