John Lott v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 272nd District Court of Brazos County

Annotate this Case
Lott v. State /**/

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-92-187-CR

 

JOHN LOTT,

Appellant

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

 

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court # 18,298-272

 

O P I N I O N

 

John Wesley Lott appeals from a probation revocation. Lott was convicted of burglary of a building in December 1988 for which he was assessed ten-years imprisonment, probated for five years. On September 30, 1991, the State filed a motion to revoke his probation based on an indictment charging him with delivery of a controlled substance, cocaine. After a hearing on March 9, 1992, Lott's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to ten years in prison.

Lott's sole point of error is that the evidence was insufficient to revoke his probation due to a break in the chain of custody of the controlled substance. Tom Jagielski, a narcotics officer with the Brazos County Narcotics Task Force, identified State's Exhibit No. 2 as a package taken from Warren Jones the police informer who has bought drugs from Lott. Dennis Ramsey, a Department of Public Safety chemist, confirmed the presence of cocaine in State's Exhibit No. 2. Ramsey testified that he first saw the substance on June 12, 1991, and did not see it again until March 6, 1992. Warren Jones, the police informer, testified that he purchased nine "rocks" of cocaine from Lott on the day in question.

State's Exhibit No. 2 was admitted into evidence without objection. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling he desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context. Tex. R. App. P. 52(a).

We overrule the point and affirm the judgment.

PER CURIUM

 

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed February 17, 1993

Do not publish

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.