ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.Appellant takes issue with our holding that the evidence was sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of appellant’s guilt. In our original opinion, we omitted a reference to the testimony of Officer Worthington, who stated that at the hospital he took a rifle from the front part of appellant’s truck and when he handed it to the sheriff he noticed blood on his hands, as well as the testimony of Officer Clark that there was “blood around over the gun,” both stock and muzzle, which would support the theory that deceased met her death as the result of repeated blows about the head, face and shoulder as indicated by the doctor’s testimony. The fact that asphalt was found in some of the wounds would not militate against such a finding because a large pool of blood was found on the highway where the jury may reasonably have concluded appellant discovered her body after she had walked from the Hotz’s house onto the highway and where appellant hurriedly applied his brakes upon discovering her. We have reconsidered the record and remain convinced that the State has, in this case, sufficiently discharged that burden.
We disposed of appellant’s contention that reversible error was reflected by the argument complained of without citation of authority. We are urged to differentiate the case at bar from Harmon v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 426, 45 S.W.2d 583, and Freeze v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 595, 113 S.W.2d 539.
In Harmon, the accused submitted a written request to the court to instruct the jury not to consider the argument of the prosecutor, and such request was by the court refused. In the case at bar, the court sustained the objection, instructed the jury not to consider the argument, and appellant asked for no further relief. Recently, in Bearden v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 437, 334 S.W.2d 447, we said:
“The court ruled favorably to the appellant on his objection. After his objection was sustained he appears to have been satisfied because he asked the court for no further relief. Appellant is in no position to complain of said statement. 5 Tex.Jur.(2) 61, Sec. 39; Martin v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 210, 248 S.W.2d 126; Earwood v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 171, 275 S.W.2d 652; Pruitt v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 340, 299 S.W.2d 148.”
In Freeze, the prosecutor went outside the record and invited the jury to investigate the reputation of the accused after their service on the jury had been completed. This argument is more akin to that which we held reversible in Bowers v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 345, 350 S.W.2d 27, and the cases there cited rather than the case at bar.
*633Here, the prosecutor was obviously, though incorrectly, operating upon the assumption that once an application for suspended sentence was made it was proper for him to comment upon the failure of appellant to call reputation witnesses. The court quickly informed him in the presence of the jury that he was in error and instructed him to proceed along another line of discussion.
Though not without difficulty, we have concluded that this case is more like Gant v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 448, 328 S.W.2d 768, wherein the court stated that he did not agree with the prosecutor and instructed the jury not to consider the argument.
Appellant for the first time raises the question of the competency of the county attorney, who assisted in the prosecution, on the grounds that he had not paid his Bar dues.
The majority of this Court reversed Martinez v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 97, 318 S.W.2d 66, because the attorney appointed by the court to defend the accused was not a qualified practicing’ attorney on the grounds that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment requires that one charged with a capital felony be represented by a qualified advocate. The Supreme Court of the United States has, in Douglas & Meyes v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811, and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, since Martinez extended the rule to non-capital cases.
We have here a case in which the competency of the district attorney, who interrogated all but one of the witnesses, is not questioned. The attack is leveled against the county attorney, who so far as this record reveals questioned only one witness.
Be this as it may, we are not prepared to hold that an accused has any constitutional right to have a competent lawyer prosecute him. If he is not competent, then the accused is amply protected in the event of conviction by the reversible errors brought about by the incompetent prosecutor. No such guarantee is present when counsel appointed by the court to represent an indigent accused is not qualified.
Appellant may not here collaterally attack the qualification of the prosecutor to act as county attorney. Snow v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 263, 114 S.W.2d 898.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.