TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-96-00180-CR
Ricky Martin, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. 385006, HONORABLE WILFRED AGUILAR, JUDGE PRESIDING
PER CURIAM
A jury found appellant guilty of criminal mischief. The county court at law assessed punishment at incarceration for ninety days, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision.
In his first point of error, appellant contends the county court at law erred by overruling his challenge for cause to venire member John Jones. This contention was not preserved for review. Although appellant exhausted his peremptory challenges (using one against Jones), he did not request an additional strike nor did he indicate that any seated juror was objectionable. Colella v. State, 915 S.W.2d 834, 843 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). In fact, appellant stated that he had no objection to the jury selected for trial. Point of error one is overruled.
Appellant next urges that the State failed to prove that the offense occurred in Travis County, Texas, as alleged in the information. The complaining witness testified that the incident giving rise to the prosecution happened in Travis County. Appellant contends, however, that there is no evidence that the offense took place in Texas.
After the State rested, appellant moved for a directed verdict of not guilty stating, "I'm not sure if the exact date of September 10th, 1991, has been established." The question of venue was not raised by the motion and is asserted by appellant for the first time on appeal. Because appellant did not raise the issue before verdict, we must presume that venue was proved unless the record affirmatively negates whatever proof the State gave on the matter. Holdridge v. State, 707 S.W.2d 18, 21-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Vasquez v. State, 491 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Tex. R. App. P. 80(d).
The record does not affirmatively reflect improper venue. To the contrary, the complainant testified that he is a resident of Austin, Travis County, Texas. Combined with his testimony that the offense occurred in Travis County, this is circumstantial evidence that the offense was committed in Texas. See Black v. State, 645 S.W.2d 789, 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Edwards v. State, 427 S.W.2d 629, 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968) (opinion on rehearing) (venue may be proved by circumstantial evidence). Point of error two is overruled.
Finally, in points of error three through twelve, appellant complains of improper jury argument. Appellant did not object to any of the allegedly improper remarks and thereby waived any error. Cockrell v. State, No. 71,766 (Tex. Crim. App. Sep. 11, 1996); Tex. R. App. P. 52(a). The points of error are overruled.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith
Affirmed
Filed: November 6, 1996
Do Not Publish
NAME="Generator" CONTENT="WordPerfect 9">
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-96-00180-CR
Ricky Martin, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. 385006, HONORABLE WILFRED AGUILAR, JUDGE PRESIDING
PER CURIAM
A jury found appellant guilty of criminal mischief. The county court at law assessed punishment at incarceration for ninety days, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision.
In his first point of error, appellant contends the county court at law erred by overruling his challenge for cause to venire member John Jones. This contention was not preserved for review. Although appellant exhausted his peremptory challenges (using one against Jones), he did not request an additional strike nor did he indicate that any seated juror was objectionable. Colella v. State, 915 S.W.2d 834, 843 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). In fact, appellant stated that he had no objection to the jury selected for trial. Point of error one is overruled.
Appellant next urges that the State failed to prove that the offense occurred in Travis County, Texas, as alleged in the information. The complaining witness testified that the incident giving rise to the prosecution happened in Travis County. Appellant contends, however, that there is no evidence that the offense took place in Texas.
After the State rested, appellant moved for a directed verdict of not guilty stating, "I'm not sure if the exact date of September 10th, 1991, has been established." The question of venue was not raised by the motion and is asserted by appellant for the first time on appeal. Because appellant did not raise the issue before verdict, we must presume that venue was proved unless the record affirmatively negates whatever proof the State gave on the matter. Holdridge v. State, 707 S.W.2d 18, 21-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Vasquez v. State, 491 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Tex. R. App. P. 80(d).
The record does not affirmatively reflect improper venue. To the contrary, the complainant testified that he is a resident of Austin, Travis County, Texas. Combined with his testimony that the offense occurred in Travis County, this is circumstantial evidence that the offense was committed in Texas. See Black v. State, 645 S.W.2d 789, 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Edwards v. State, 427 S.W.2d 629, 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968) (opinion on rehearing) (venue may be proved by circumstantial evidence). Point of error two is overruled.
Finally, in points of error three through twelve, appellant complains of improper jury argument. Appellant did not object to any of the allegedly improper remarks and thereby waived any error. Cockrell v. State, No. 71,766 (Tex. Crim. App. Sep. 11, 1996); Tex. R. App. P. 52(a). The points of error are overruled.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith
Affirmed
Filed: November 6, 1996
Do Not Publish