review the facts that because of that he should not be just cast away and disregarded and warehoused in prison. Prison really can be a time where a person can be rehabilitated, and each time he’s been there, he’s come out a better person. Well, he is a young man. Obviously, a long-term prison sentence is going to impact his life greatly. I ask you to please do justice, but please temper it with mercy. Thank you. The State asserts that the above argument by defense counsel was “[ojbviously ... calculated to lead the jury to the conclusion that a long sentence given would be a long sentence served.” We hold that defense counsel’s argument did not in any way broach the subject of parole laws or their effect on the defendant. Cf. Franklin v. State, 693 S.W.2d 420, 429 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). The prosecutor’s argument in the present case
holding that the admission of out of court statements by a government witness when responding to an inquiry by defense counsel creates invited error  holding that an appellant is not permitted to rely on invited error on appeal holding failure to appoint two experts not preserved for review where defense counsel invited error by requesting only one holding ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to object to prosecutors comments cognizable in postconviction motion since court unable to review on appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve error holding that defense counsel had invited prosecutors comments on parole law