Jeffrey Arlen Quinn v. State, 12-14-00263-CR

Appellant Jeffrey Arlen Quinn was convicted; this appeal challenges only the punishment-phase jury charge.
The jury charge omitted key language from Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.07(4)(a) about parole: (1) minimum two‑year service on sentences ≤4 years, (2) that parole application cannot be accurately predicted, and (3) jurors should not consider how parole would apply to this defendant.
Appellant did not object to the omitted parole instructions at trial.
The jury assessed 17 years’ imprisonment (maximum available was 20 years).
The punishment record included extensive prior convictions and strong evidence from the guilt phase (high‑speed, dangerous evasion captured on video), which the State relied on when arguing punishment.
The State concedes the omission was error but argues reversal requires a showing of "egregious harm," which it contends Quinn failed to prove; the State asks the court to affirm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether omission of statutorily required parole language in the punishment charge requires reversal when no trial objection was made	Quinn: Omitted Art. 37.07(4)(a) language likely caused the jury to consider parole effects, prejudicing punishment and warranting a new punishment trial	State: Error conceded but reversal requires proof of egregious, actual (not theoretical) harm; record (sentence below max, heavy punishment evidence, juror note ambiguous) shows no egregious harm	Court applies the heightened "egregious harm" standard for unpreserved charge errors and affirms unless actual egregious harm is shown (State argues Quinn did not meet that burden)

Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (standard for reviewing jury‑charge error and preservation)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (harm must be actual, not theoretical; factors for reviewing charge error)
Olivas v. State, 202 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (unobjected‑to charge errors require showing of egregious harm)
Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (egregious‑harm standard is fact‑specific and difficult to prove)
Solis v. State, 792 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (strength of other evidence reduces likelihood of egregious harm)
Williams v. State, 851 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (consideration of whether defendant was assessed a harsher penalty due to error)
Gigsby v. State, 833 S.W.2d 573 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1992) (failure to include parole instruction is error)
Blumenstetter v. State, 135 S.W.3d 234 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2004) (discussion of egregious harm and charge error review)
Ruiz v. State, 753 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (degree of emphasis on an issue affects egregious‑harm analysis)