Joe Barry Ferguson v. State, 05-14-00281-CR

Ferguson pled guilty to sexual assault of a child and the jury assessed punishment at 15 years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
The case was appealed from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Cause No. F-1235370-U.
The trial court overruled Ferguson’s motion for a new trial.
The sole issue on appeal concerns egregious harm from a jury-charge misstatement about parole eligibility.
The offense at issue occurred in Dallas County; other related offenses occurred in Travis County.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the parole misstatement egregiously harmful to Ferguson	Ferguson contends error affected the trial’s fairness.	State concedes error but argues curative instruction mitigates harm.	No egregious harm; judgment affirmed

Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (determine existence of error before harm assessment)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for harm after error is found)
Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (egregious-harm framework)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for fundamental error)
Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (egregious-harm factors and consideration of record as a whole)
Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (parole instruction error analysis when combined with charge)
Hill v. State, 30 S.W.3d 505 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000) (parole misstatement and curative instruction considerations)
Ross v. State, 133 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (curative instruction and lack of jury confusion supporting no egregious harm)
Taylor v. State, 146 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004) (parole instruction error evaluated on record)