Troy Roberson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 299th District Court of Travis County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 03-93-00647-CR

Case Date: 12/20/1995

Plaintiff: Troy Roberson

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 299th District Court of Travis County

Preview:Troy Roberson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
299th District Court of Travis County
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-93-00647-CR
Troy Roberson, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 0934036, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING
PER CURIAM
A jury found appellant guilty of murder and assessed punishment at imprisonment for life and a $10,000 fine. Penal
Code, 63d Leg., R.S., ch. 399, sec. 1, 19.02, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 883, 913, amended by Act of May 28, 1973, 63d
Leg., R.S., ch. 426, art. 2, 1, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 1122, 1123 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. 19.02, since amended).
Appellant shot and killed the deceased in a drug-related dispute.
In his only point of error, appellant contends the district court erred by permitting the State to adduce testimony that
appellant's trial attorney had also been the attorney for a witness. The witness in question was Perry Williams, a friend
of appellant who witnessed the shooting and testified for the State during the guilt phase of trial. In response to
questions by the prosecutor, Williams acknowledged that, since the shooting, he had been convicted and placed on
probation for possession of cocaine.
Q: And who was your attorney in that matter?
A: Lee Richardson.
Q: This same Lee Richardson over here?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he your attorney during the same time that he's been Troy's attorney?
A: No.
Q: When was he -- how do you know?
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/153.html[8/20/2013 7:04:57 PM]

A: He wasn't Troy's attorney then, he was mine.
At this point, appellant objected to this questioning as irrelevant and an effort "to get at the defendant through his
lawyer." The objection was overruled but the prosecutor went on to another subject.
Any error in this line of questioning was not preserved for two reasons. First, appellant did not object at the earliest
opportunity. Johnson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 272, 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Second, appellant waived any error that
occurred at the guilt phase when he testified at the punishment phase and admitted his guilt. McGlothlin v. State, 896
S.W.2d 183, 187 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The point of error is overruled.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and B. A. Smith
Affirmed
Filed: December 20, 1995
Do Not Publish
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/153.html[8/20/2013 7:04:57 PM]

Download 153.pdf