Roy Vasquez v. State, 01-15-00183-CR

Appellant Roy Vasquez was indicted for aggravated sexual assault in Harris County, Texas.
Trial resulted in a guilty verdict on the lesser-included offense of sexual assault and a 17-year sentence plus $10,000 fine.
During punishment, defense sought to argue that conviction requires lifetime sex-offender registration under Chapter 62; the trial court sustained objections and barred that line of argument.
Defense later offered an offer of proof detailing the content that would have been argued about registration consequences, which the court rejected.
The appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting correct statements of law in closing argument and that the error harmed him given the punishment imposed.
The court reverses the conviction/punishment proceeding and remands for a new punishment proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by prohibiting sex-offender registration argument	Vasquez	Vasquez	Yes, error; argument permitted as correct law.
Whether the error was preserved and harmed the appellant	Vasquez	State	Yes, preserved via offer of proof; harm standard met.
Whether defense argument constituted correct statement of law	Vasquez	State	Yes, correct law on lifetime registration.
Whether the trial court’s ruling affected punishment	Vasquez	State	Yes, likely affected; maximum could have been imposed.

Corpus v. State, 30 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist] 2000) (relevant for authority to argue law not in charge)
Nzewi v. State, 359 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (closing-argument law may be correctly stated even if not in charge)
Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for objections in jury arguments)
McGee v. State, 774 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (right to counsel and closing argument boundaries)
Turner v. State, 87 S.W.3d 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (law not in charge permissible if correctly stated)