the State violated the defendant’s" Fifth Amendment right by commenting on his failure to testify, “[w]e view the State’s argument from the jury’s standpoint and resolve any ambiguities in the language in favor of it being permissible argument.” Randolph v. State, 353 S.W.3d 887, 891 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). Here, the State Was reminding the jury about Nickerson's confession, not emphasizing his silence at trial. Because the language was not “manifestly intended or was of such a character'that the jury would necessarily "and naturally take it as a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify,” we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Nickerson’s objection to the State’s statement. See id.; see also Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). Further, the charge instructed the jury that
holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify holding a prosecutor may not comment on a defendants silence holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify holding that prosecutor did not comment on defendants failure to testify by referencing defendants written statement and pointing out what defendant did not say