Justin S. Mathews v. State ( 2012 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12-00046-CR
JUSTIN S. MATHEWS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-1351-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Justin Mathews appeals from a conviction for aggravated robbery for which he
was sentenced to life in prison. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 29.03 (a)(2). Mathews complains
that the trial court erred by providing a misleading instruction regarding good conduct
time and erred in instructing the jury not to consider “sympathy” in assessing
punishment. We affirm.
Parole Law and Good Time Jury Charge Instruction
Mathews complains in his first issue that the jury charge’s instructions regarding
parole and good time were erroneous because the instructions allow the jury to
consider that a defendant might be released early solely due to accruing good conduct
time. Mathews contends that the statutory language required to be set forth pursuant
to Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.07, section 4(a) in the jury charge is insufficient
and misleading. Mathews did not object to the jury charge on this basis. We have
previously decided this precise issue against Mathews’s position and are not persuaded
to reconsider our ruling. See Gaither v. State, No. 10-11-00129-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS
5252 at *3, (Tex. App.—Waco June 27, 2012, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (not designated for
publication). We overrule issue one.
Sympathy
Mathews complains in his second issue that the trial court erred by instructing
the jury not to consider “sympathy” in its deliberations in the jury charge in the
punishment phase of his trial. Mathews did not object to the jury charge on this basis.
We have also previously decided this issue against Mathews’s position and are not
persuaded to reconsider our ruling. See Gaither v. State, No. 10-11-00129-CR, 2012 Tex.
App. LEXIS 5252 at *4, (Tex. App.—Waco June 27, 2012, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (not
designated for publication); Lewis v. State, No. 10-09-00322-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS
6074 at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 3, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for
Mathews v. State Page 2
publication); Turner v. State, No. 10-09-00307-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6072 at *4, (Tex.
App.—Waco Aug. 3, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication); Wilson
v. State, 267 S.W.3d 215, 219-20 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. ref’d). We overrule
Mathews’s second issue.
Conclusion
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed August 30, 2012
Do not publish
[CRPM]
Mathews v. State Page 3