Kipp Kenneth Luster v. State

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________

NO. 09-15-00281-CR ____________________

KIPP KENNETH LUSTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-16934 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Kipp Kenneth Luster of possession of a controlled substance and assessed a punishment of twenty years in prison. In one appellate issue, Luster complains of the trial court’s decision to grant one of the State’s challenges for cause. During voir dire, potential juror number one stated that she could not give a young man a sentence of ninety-nine years for a drug offense, and she expressed a belief that drug-related offenses are overcharged and the sentences excessive. The trial court granted the State’s challenge for cause to juror one. Luster did not object to the trial court’s ruling. 1

“A party must object to the granting of a challenge for cause before he can complain of that action on appeal.” Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79, 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (Having failed to object at trial, appellant’s complaints that the trial court erred by sustaining the State’s challenges for cause were not preserved.); see also Ham v. State, 355 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, pet. ref’d) (“Improper dismissal for cause requires objection.”). Because Luster failed to object when the trial court granted the State’s challenge for cause, his sole issue is not preserved for appellate review and is overruled. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice

Submitted on April 6, 2016

Opinion Delivered April 13, 2016

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.