DAVID WYATT HAWTHORNE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 19, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-88-01164-CR
............................
DAVID WYATT HAWTHORNE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court #3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F88-82395-QK
.................................................................
O P I N I O N
Before Chief Justice Enoch and Justices Baker and Onion FN:1
Opinion By Justice Baker
        A jury convicted appellant of the offense of burglary of a building. Punishment was assessed at forty years. In two points of error, appellant complains that 1) the trial court erred in finding the enhancement paragraph for burglary of a vehicle to be true and 2) the trial court erred in overruling appellant's objection to improper jury argument. We affirm.
        In his first point of error, appellant complains that the judgment of the prior conviction alleged for enhancement purposes was void due to a failure to comply with the Dallas County Magistrate's Act as interpreted in Omura v. State, 730 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd); Tex. Gov't. Code Ann. §§ 54.311, 54.312 (Vernon S.W.2d upp. 1988). Appellant's contention is that the record reflects that the district judge did not have all of the necessary papers before him to properly review the magistrate's actions contrary to the mandate of the Act. See Omura, 730 S.W.2d at 786.
        The record reflects that at the penalty stage of the trial of the primary offense, appellant did not object to the judgment of the prior conviction used for enhancement purposes. The failure to object waives any error, even a violation of a constitutional right. See Russell v. State, 665 S.W.2d 771, 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1073 (1984); Tex. R. Crim. Evid. 103(a)(1); Tex. R. App. P. 52(a). A specific objection is required to inform the trial judge of the basis of the objection and afford the judge the opportunity to rule upon it. Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Since appellant failed to object, the error is waived. We overrule this point of error.
        In his second point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling an objection to the State's jury argument. The record reflects that appellant failed to secure a ruling on the objection. The complaint was not preserved for appellate review. See Nichols v. State, 504 S.W.2d 462, 464-5, (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). We overrule this point of error.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
                                                          
                                                          JAMES A. BAKER
Do Not Publish                                        JUSTICE
Tex. R. App. P. 90
881164F.U05
 
FN:1 The Honorable John F. Onion, Jr., Presiding Judge, Retired, Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assignment.
File Date[10-19-89]
File Name[881164F]