Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 21, 2007.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-06-00755-CR
____________
EDDIE PEREZ, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 232nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1059953
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, Eddie Perez, Jr., pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery without an agreed recommendation as to punishment. After a pre-sentence investigation, the trial court held a hearing and determined punishment. Although the State requested a punishment of at least thirty years= confinement, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years= confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections, Institutional Division. Appellant claims that we must reverse and remand because the State referred to appellant=s post-arrest silence in its closing argument. We affirm.
The following exchange occurred at the end of the State=s closing argument:
[The State]: He never cooperated with the police, never gave any information.
[Appellant]: Your Honor, we=re going to object to that. The Defendant has testified that he was advised he had the right to have his attorney present and not to make any statements against him. Those are his constitutional rights and the State does not have any right to hold the Constitution against the Defendant. He has a right not to apologize for asserting a Constitutional right.
The Court: Sustained.
[The State]: This is a punishment hearing Judge and he=s trying to mitigate any responsibility for his client. My point in addressing that notion is that this isn=t a situation where his client did an immediate call soon as he was caught. In fact he=s trying to avoid responsibility up to this point and now minimizing his role in what happened.
Clearly, the trial court agreed with appellant that the State=s remarks were inappropriate and, therefore, sustained the objection. The State continued and ultimately requested that appellant receive Anothing less than 30 years in the penitentiary.@ However, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years= imprisonment. Yet, in spite of the favorable ruling on his objection, and imposition of less punishment than the State requested, he now contends the trial court improperly punished him for his post-arrest silence.
The State contends appellant either waived his issue by not pursuing it to an adverse ruling, or alternatively, that there is nothing to review because appellant received all the relief he requested. The State further argues that even if there were error to review, it was harmless. We hold that there is no error to review because appellant received all the relief he requested. See Purtell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 360, 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Indeed, we are at a loss to determine what further relief appellant could have sought or received in this hearing to the bench. We overrule appellant=s issue and affirm the judgment below.
_____________________________
J. Harvey Hudson
Justice
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed June 21, 2007.
Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Hudson.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).