Rome v. State

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred when it concluded that the state had established the corpus delicti of the offense with which appellant was charged, and admitted appellant’s confession in evidence; (2) whether the trial court erred when it sustained the state’s Neil objections to certain of appellant’s peremptory challenges, allowing the challenged jurors to remain on the jury; and (3) whether the trial court erred when it sentenced appellant as an habitual violent felony offender. We affirm, without discussion, as to the first…