Harris Jones Thompson, Jr. v. State

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-01-487 CR ____________________ HARRIS JONES THOMPSON, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 258th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. 15,908 O P I N I O N A jury convicted Harris Jones Thompson, Jr. of attempted murder and sentenced him to seventy-five years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Thompson's counsel on appeal filed an Anders brief. (1) Subsequently, Thompson filed a pro se brief raising three issues. (2) In his first point, Thompson argues it was error for the State to inform the venire he had a prior conviction. The record reflects the State informed the jury panel at voir dire of the range of punishment applicable upon proof of a prior conviction for enhancement purposes. Article 36.01 proscribes informing the jury of any of the specific allegations contained in the enhancement paragraph of the indictment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.01 (Vernon Supp. 2003). It does not prevent the State from informing the jury in hypothetical terms of the applicable range of punishment if the State proves any prior convictions for enhancement purposes. See Johnson v. State, 901 S.W.2d 525, 532 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1995, pet. ref'd). In the instant case, the statements only explained the possible punishments for the charged offense and did not connect Thompson with any particular prior conviction. Point of error one is overruled. Thompson's second point contends the victim (Marvin Johnson) failed to identify Thompson as having stabbed him. Any inconsistencies in Johnson's testimony were resolved by the jury and do not render the evidence insufficient to support Thompson's conviction. See Jones v. State, 951 S.W.2d 522, 527 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1997, pet. ref'd). Point of error two is overruled. In his final point, Thompson claims "the State improperly interfered in its witness' parole revocation hearing, offering him illegal enticements in exchange for his assistance in prosecuting [Thompson]." Thompson cites no authority for his contention the "enticement" was illegal. The record reflects trial counsel did not object to the limitations imposed by the trial court on cross-examination of the witness regarding this matter. Accordingly, no reversible error has been shown. Point of error three is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. PER CURIAM Submitted on January 2, 2003 Opinion Delivered January 15, 2003 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess, and Gaultney, JJ. 1. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 2. The State failed to file a brief.