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 371 ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION (footnote: 1)
-----------
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 Batson (footnote: 2) 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. (footnote: 3) Based on this reasoning, we are compelled to hold that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s Batson challenge. (footnote: 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DO NOT PUBLISH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
FOOTNOTES
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).