Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 16, 2009.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-08-00544-CR
____________
JIMMY RAY WALLER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1143605
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, Jimmy Ray Waller, appeals from his conviction for the felony offense of felon in possession of a firearm. A jury found appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at 33 years= imprisonment. In a single issue on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
Discussion
Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence, namely the firearm, live rounds, and magazine allegedly discovered on his person. In the motion, appellant argued that police officers arrested him and searched him without a warrant or probable cause and that the evidence in question was thereby obtained in violation of his constitutional and statutory rights. The trial court did not rule on the motion prior to trial, and no hearing was ever held on the motion. When the evidence in question was offered during trial, as exhibits 3, 4, and 5, defense counsel initially stated ANo objection, Your Honor.@ The trial court then said AState=s 3, 4, and 5 will be admitted without objection.@ Defense counsel then asked to approach the bench, an off-record bench conference then apparently ensued, and defense counsel thereafter stated on the record: AI want to make an objection now. I said no objection, but I do want to change my objection right now. . . . So it=s improper, Judge.@ The trial judge overruled the objection and admitted the exhibits.
After the State rested its case, appellant stated as follows:
Your Honor, I make a Motion For Instructed Verdict. I don=t think the evidence will support, the State has proved its case, proven each and every element of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt, Your Honor. I think the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction. I think that the State has failed to prove that there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Waller, and ask that beCan instructed verdict on this case. [sic]
In order to preserve error for appellate review, a party must make a timely and sufficiently explicit request, objection, or motion in the trial court and receive a ruling on the request, objection or motion or object to the court=s failure to rule. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). To be effective in preserving error, the trial objection must comport with the appellate argument. Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
Appellant does not cite any place in the record, and we have not found one, where the trial court ruled on the motion to suppress. See Thomas v. State, 884 S.W.2d 215, 215-17 (Tex. App.CEl Paso 1994, pet. ref=d) (holding that merely filing a motion to suppress did not preserve error and subsequent failure to timely object to admission of evidence waived any alleged error). Appellant=s trial objection to the admission of the firearm, live rounds, and magazine into evidence, i.e., Ait=s improper,@ was too general to preserve any particular argument. See Buchanan v. State, 207 S.W.3d 772, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (AIt is well established that, in order to preserve an issue for appeal, a timely objection must be made that states the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.@); Paige v. State, 573 S.W.2d 16, 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (holding objection that proper predicate was not laid was too general to preserve error). Lastly, to the extent appellant=s statement in making a motion for instructed verdictCthat the State failed to show probable cause for the arrestCcould be interpreted as an objection to the admission of the evidence, such objection was untimely, coming well after the evidence was admitted. See Martin v. State, 246 S.W.3d 246, 258 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (stating that objection to evidence must be made at the Aearliest possible opportunity@). Accordingly, appellant failed to preserve his appellate complaint. We therefore overrule appellant=s sole issue.
We affirm the trial court=s judgment.
/s/ Adele Hedges
Chief Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Frost.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).