Appeals explained that the prosecutors’ comments in both Cherry and Kelly were improper because they essentially told the jury to ignore their duties to decide guilt or innocence because the only issue in the case was what punishment should be assessed to the defendant. Mann v. State, 718 S.W.2d 741, 744 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). It is generally improper for the State to comment on punishment during the guilt-innocence stage of the trial. See McClure v. State, 544 S.W.2d 390, 393 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); Cherry, 507 S.W.2d at 549. However, not every reference to punishment at the guilt-innocence stage is improper. Cf. Mann, 718 S.W.2d at 744; see also Barnes v. State, No. 01-01-01086, 2002 WL 31388820, at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 24, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). We find that the prosecutor’s argument here
holding on habeas review that counsels failure to object to improper argument at trial did not prejudice petitioner where other evidence supported a guilty verdict and the jury was told closing argument was not evidence holding prosecutors argument that defense counsel was manufacturing evidence and thus suborning perjury was improper holding prosecutors isolated argument referencing punishment was not improper because it was responsive to evidence in the record and was not intended to inflame the jury holding the prosecutors argument if it was there they can bring it to you was not an improper jury argument holding prosecutors argument that defense counsels goal was to keep evidence from the jury was improper