ALLAN KENT ERDMAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 23, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-88-01101-CR
............................
ALLAN KENT ERDMAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 9
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. MA88-25813-K
.................................................................
O P I N I O N
Before Justices Whitham, Baker and Ovard
Opinion By Justice Whitham
                Appellant appeals a conviction for unlawfully carrying a weapon. In his sole point of error, appellant contends that the "search of [appellant's] locked briefcase could not be justified on grounds that inventory was needed to protect [appellant's] possessions and to protect police from false claims of theft." We conclude that appellant waived his sole point of error. Accordingly, we affirm.
        Appellant was arrested for public intoxication after the vehicle in which he was riding had been stopped and the driver arrested pursuant to an outstanding warrant. Since both the driver of the vehicle and the only passenger were arrested, the police impounded the vehicle and made an inventory search. During the course of this search, the police opened appellant's locked briefcase. The police found a weapon found in the briefcase. When the State offered the briefcase into evidence, the appellant objected:
        Your Honor, at this time, we would object to it inasmuch as no proper foundation has been laid for the admission of this evidence. No chain of evidence has been established from Lt. Moore until the time it came in here this morning, and we object to its admission at this time.
When the weapon was offered into evidence, appellant objected:
        Object for the same reasons we previously objected. There is no proper establishment for the chain of custody or control from the time Lt. Moore saw it until this morning.
(emphasis added). At no time did appellant object to the admissibility of the weapon on any other grounds. At no time did he request a hearing on the suppression of the weapon. At no time did appellant make any objection to the inventory search itself. Appellant may not, for the first time on appeal, urge error not raised at trial. The error presented on appeal must be the same as the objection raised before the trial court. Nelson v. State, 607 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Since the objection made in the trial court in the present case was not the same as urged on appeal, appellant has not properly preserved his argument for review. Hodge v. State, 631 S.W.2d 754, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). Thus, we conclude that appellant waived his sole point of error.
        Affirmed.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          WARREN WHITHAM
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
 
881101.U05
 
 
File Date[10-23-89]
File Name[881101]