Fernando Garcia v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 8 of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-03-00346-CR
Fernando GARCIA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 830761
Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 7, 2004

AFFIRMED

Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the trial court's judgment in this memorandum opinion under Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. for the following reasons:

1. Garcia contends the trial court erred by admitting Deputy Alex De Leon's testimony regarding the horizontal gaze nystagmus test he administered to Garcia because the State failed to establish De Leon as an expert. Garcia, however, failed to raise an objection concerning De Leon's qualifications to testify when De Leon began testifying about the various field sobriety tests he administered to Garcia. As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Because Garcia did not raise an objection to De Leon's qualifications to testify regarding the HGN test he administered to Garcia, we hold that Garcia has not preserved this complaint for our review. See id.; Guzman v. State, 521 S.W.2d 267, 269 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975).

2. Garcia contends the trial court erred by admitting the audio portion of the video recording of his arrest. According to Garcia, the trial court should have suppressed the audio portion of the video recording because De Leon's commentary on the video bolsters the Deputy's credibility and contains statements regarding extraneous offenses. Garcia, however, did not raise either of the aforementioned objections when the State sought to introduce the arrest video into evidence. Because Garcia did not timely raise his objections in the trial court, we hold that Garcia has not preserved this complaint for our review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Guzman, 521 S.W.2d at 269.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Catherine Stone, Justice

Do Not Publish