Daniel Espinoza, A/K/A Danny Espinoza v. State

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN





NO. 3-92-600-CR



DANIEL ESPINOZA

a/k/a

DANNY ESPINOZA,

APPELLANT



vs.





THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE





FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0920364, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING







PER CURIAM

A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated assault. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West 1989 & Supp. 1994). The district court assessed punishment, enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for forty years.

In his only point of error, appellant contends the district court fundamentally erred when it instructed the jury on the meaning of "reasonable doubt." Appellant acknowledges that the instruction given without objection was that mandated by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 162 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant argues, however, that the Geesa instruction is confusing, discourages a careful consideration of the evidence, and does not adequately emphasize the importance of the presumption of innocence.

The Geesa instruction does not contain the "moral certainty" language recently criticized by the United States Supreme Court. Victor v. Nebraska, 62 U.S.L.W. 4179 (U.S. March 22, 1994). Appellant cites no authority binding on this Court that supports the conclusion that the Geesa instruction is unconstitutional or otherwise fundamentally defective. In the absence of such authority, this Court, like the district court, is bound to follow Geesa. The point of error is overruled.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.



Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and Jones

Affirmed

Filed: May 18, 1994

Do Not Publish