JOHN ANTHONY HINOJOSA v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County

NUMBER 13-04-435-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JOHN ANTHONY HINOJOSA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 319th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Ya ez, Castillo and Garza

Concurring Memorandum Opinion by Justice Castillo

By his first issue, appellant John Anthony Hinojosa maintains that his identification was tainted by an illegal arrest. Respectfully, I would hold that Hinojosa forfeited the complained-of error because: (1) his motions to suppress were insufficiently specific to apprise the trial court of his complaint, see Flores v. State, 129 S.W.3d 169, 171 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 2004, no pet.); and (2) the objection at trial is dissimilar to his complaint on appeal, see Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Coffey v. State, 796 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).

Similarly, I agree with the majority that Hinojosa forfeited the complained-of error in his second issue regarding improper jury argument. Hinojosa did not secure a ruling on his objection. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(2)(A); DeRusse v. State, 579 S.W.2d 224, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) ("An objection to argument must be pressed to the point of procuring a ruling or the objection is waived. The statement by the trial court that the jury would remember the evidence is not sufficient to preserve error; nothing is presented for review." (citations omitted)).

Applying these preservation of error principles, I concur with the decision to overrule Hinojosa's two issues on appeal and, accordingly, affirm the trial court judgment.

ERRLINDA CASTILLO

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Concurring Memorandum Opinion delivered

and filed this the 6th day of October, 2005.