COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00138-CR
CODY J. ANDERSON APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant Cody J. Anderson appeals his conviction for two counts of
aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age. Anderson
asserts one point on appeal. We will affirm.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
II. DISCUSSION
In his sole point, Anderson asserts that the State failed to provide him
adequate notice of its intent to introduce extraneous-offense evidence of his
prior, prolonged sexual relationship with his former common-law wife, who
testified at the punishment phase of trial that she was fifteen-years old when their
sexual relationship began. We conclude that Anderson failed to preserve any
alleged error regarding this witness’s testimony because he never lodged an
objection to her testimony.
To have preserved error on his complaint for inadequate notice regarding
the State’s intent to introduce extraneous-offense, Anderson should have made a
timely, specific objection in the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Gregory v.
State, 56 S.W.3d 164, 176 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. dism’d),
cert. denied, 538 U.S. 978 (2003) (overruling complaint that State’s notice of
intent to introduce extraneous-offense evidence was inadequate because
accused failed to lodge a timely, specific objection).
Here, the record does not reflect that Anderson lodged any objection to the
alleged inadequate notice regarding the complained-of testimony. And Anderson
does not argue that he did. Because Anderson failed to voice his complaint in
the trial court, he has failed to preserve this complaint for appellate review. See
Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Wooden v. State, 929 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tex. App.—El Paso
1996, no pet.) (holding that aggravated-robbery defendant forfeited alleged errors
relating to admission of extraneous-offense evidence at punishment stage of trial
2
by failing to raise them at trial or at pretrial hearing). We overrule Anderson’s
sole point.
III. CONCLUSION
Having overruled Anderson’s sole point on appeal, we affirm the trial
court’s judgments.
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: April 3, 2014
3
Cody J. Anderson v. State
Combined Opinion