Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2005

David Comparini Luna v. State

David Comparini Luna v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided January 12, 2005

David Comparini Luna v. State

Opinion

 

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 


No. 10-03-00043-CR

 

David Comparini Luna,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

 

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

 

 

 


From the County Court at Law No 2

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court # M200200046

 

DISSENTING Opinion

 


          The trial court’s question was standard operating procedure to make sure the defendant was knowingly and voluntarily waiving his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.  The admonishment was at the request of Luna’s counsel.  The trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial.  I dissent.

 

                                                                   TOM GRAY

                                                                   Chief Justice

 

Dissenting opinion delivered and filed January 12, 2005

the due course of law provision of the Texas Constitution.  Because no timely, specific objection was made, this issue is not preserved for our review.  Id.  See also, Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. 

          Having no issue preserved for review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

                                                                   TOM GRAY

                                                                   Chief Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

          Justice Vance, and

          Justice Reyna

(Justice Vance concurring with note)*

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed April 13, 2005

Do not publish

[CRPM]

 

          * “(Justice Vance concurs.  See Parker v. State, 119 S.W.3d 350, 357 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, pet. ref’d).  This opinion simply concludes, without facts to justify the decision, that the issue was not preserved for review.  However, Rivera objected to the charge, and the State does not urge a lack of preservation.)”

 

 

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.