Carlos Miguel Moreland v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-92-272-CR

CARLOS MIGUEL MORELAND,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 92-443-C

O P I N I O N

Moreland appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. He was found guilty by a jury, and, as a result of two prior convictions that enhanced the range of punishment, the jury assessed punishment at ninety-nine years in prison.

In points one and two Moreland contends that the court erred in overruling his objection to evidence of an extraneous offense and in failing to require the prosecutor to establish the relevance of the extraneous offense. During the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, Vaughn Davidson, the victim in the charged offense, described the details of the aggravated robbery.

Vaughn testified that Moreland approached him and his fiancée, Julie Kajar, in a restaurant parking lot on the evening of March 26, 1991. As Vaughn was unlocking the passenger door to let Julie in the car, Moreland walked quickly toward the car, held a gun about chest high, and said, "Give me all your give me your wallet and all your jewelry." According to Vaughn, Moreland took his wallet, removed his watch from his wrist, and grabbed Julie's purse from her arm. Just as Moreland ripped Julie's purse from her arm, another couple entered that portion of the parking lot. Vaughn continued to describe the events for the jury with the aid of a parking-lot diagram:

AThey had apparently parked over here, and they rounded the corner. Just as he ripped her purse off, he just took probably two steps, jumped up here, and asked the other lady, he said, "Give me your purse." But at that point I don't think she realized he had a gun. She was with her husband I guess. And she jerked her purse away and said no. And the guy said something to him and

[Defense Attorney]: Your Honor, we object to any type of extraneous offense.

THE COURT: Overruled.

[Prosecutor]:

QGo ahead and describe it.

AShe jerked her purse away and said, no. And the guy said something like leave her alone. That's when he pulled the gun up and said

[Defense Attorney]: Object to any hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

ASaid, "I'll kill you, man." And I guess in all the commotion that was enough for him, and he turned around and kind of walked off. And he didn't get their purse or anything.

The same evidence, however, was introduced through the testimony of Julie Kajar Davidson, without objection. After describing the details of the charged offense, as well as Moreland's aggravated robbery of herself, Julie testified as follows:

QAfter the robber got your property, what did he do then?

AAnother couple was approaching the restaurant, had parked a long the side.

QPoint out for the jury where this other couple was coming from.

AWe were here in front. And there is parking all along the side and back. Of course, I have no idea where they actually parked. But they came around this corner to go into the door. And

QWhat happened when they came around the corner?

AWell, he had just finished well, he had just taken my purse. And he walked over to confront them, and he tried to take the woman's purse. And the couple did not have any idea, I would assume, that he had a gun because they resisted him, like not taking him seriously.

QWas he still holding the gun up when he went over there to them?

ANo. But at that moment when they resisted him, he held it up in their face and told them that he would kill them.

QDid he get their property?

ANo, he didn't.

No objection was made to any of the prosecutor's questions or to Julie's answers. Therefore, any complaint about the admission of Vaughn's testimony was rendered harmless when the same evidence came in by Julie's testimony. // As a result, we overrule points of error one and two.

In point three Moreland contends that the court erred in overruling his objection to the following comments made by the prosecutor during voir dire examination of the jury:

Well, can all of you all tell me that when you think about his rights, you all will also think about the rights of society, because you protect those rights also.

[Defense Attorney]: Your Honor, we are going to object. That's improper voir dire.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Moreland's objection that the comments were "improper" was insufficient because it was only a general objection. // Such an objection does not apprise the trial court of the grounds upon which it was based. As a result, it failed to preserve the complaint, and nothing is presented for review. // Therefore, we overrule point of error three.

We affirm the judgment.

BOBBY L. CUMMINGS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed September 15, 1993

Do not publish