Adrienne A. Dunn a/k/a Adrian Dunn v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-06-00341-CR

Adrienne A. DUNN a/k/a Adrian Dunn,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2004-CR-6933

Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 18, 2007

AFFIRMED

A jury found defendant, Adrienne Dunn, guilty of possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at seventy years' confinement. In two issues on appeal, Dunn asserts the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress and in admitting evidence at trial that was the fruit of an illegal interrogation. Because we conclude that Dunn did not preserve his complaints for appeal, we affirm.

Motion to Suppress

In his first issue on appeal, Dunn asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the drugs found in his possession were discovered in violation of the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution. The trial court held a pretrial evidentiary suppression hearing and then denied the motion to suppress. Thereafter, at trial, the State sought to introduce four exhibits: (1) an envelope containing (2) a matchbox, inside of which was (3) a plastic bag of narcotics and (4) drug testing results. Defense counsel affirmatively stated, "no objection" to the admission of the exhibits. When a pretrial motion to suppress evidence is denied, a defendant is not required to subsequently object at trial to the same evidence in order to preserve error on appeal. Moraguez v. State, 701 S.W.2d 902, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); De Hoyos v. State, 81 S.W.3d 853, 854 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2002, no pet.). "However, when the defendant affirmatively asserts during trial he has 'no objection' to the admission of the complained of evidence, he waives any error in the admission of the evidence despite the pre-trial ruling." Moraguez, 701 S.W.2d at 904; see also Dean v. State, 749 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); De Hoyos, 81 S.W.3d at 854. Because defense counsel stated "no objection" to the admission of evidence of the controlled substance found in Dunn's possession, Dunn waived his right to complain about the admissibility of such evidence.

Defendant's Statement

In his second issue, Dunn asserts the trial court erred in allowing the arresting officer to testify that Dunn admitted to him during the pat-down search that a bulge in the area of his waist was drugs. On appeal, Dunn contends the officer should have read him his Miranda rights because, although he was not handcuffed, he knew he was not free to leave and his statement was the result of a custodial interrogation. A complaint on appeal must comport with the objection raised before the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). At the pretrial hearing, Dunn did not argue that his statement should be suppressed. At trial, no objection was raised to the officer's testimony about the statement that Dunn made. Therefore, Dunn has not preserved his complaint for our review. See id.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, we overrule Dunn's issues on appeal, and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH