J. C. GENTRY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion filed November 22, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-88-01512-CR
............................
J. C. GENTRY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F88-84465-VS
.................................................................
OPINION PER CURIAM
Before Justices McClung, Lagarde and Ovard
        J. C. Gentry was convicted in a bench trial of the offense of possession of a controlled substance, to-wit: cocaine. Punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions, was assessed at thirty years' confinement. Appellant raises two points of error, claiming that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the controlled substance; and (2) the punishment assessed was outside the range authorized. We overrule appellant's points and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
        In appellant's first point of error, he claims that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence State's Exhibit No. 1 when the proper chain of custody was not established. The record reflects that when the State offered the exhibit, appellant said, "We have no objections to State's Exhibit No. 1, your Honor."
        Any potential error in the introduction of evidence is waived when the defendant expressly states that he has no objection to its introduction. McGrew v. State, 523 S.W.2d 679, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). By expressly stating that he had no objection, appellant waived any claim that the proper chain of custody was not established. Appellant's first point of error is overruled.
        In his second point of error, appellant claims that the judgment is void because the sentence is outside the range authorized by law. The record reflects that appellant was indicted for possession of a controlled substance, to-wit: cocaine in an amount less than 28 grams; this offense is classified as a second degree felony. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4476-15 §§ 4.02(b)(3)(D), 4.04(b) (Vernon Supp. 1989). Second degree felonies are punishable by confinement of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years, and by a fine not to exceed $10,000. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.33 (Vernon 1974). The enhancement paragraphs of the indictment alleged that appellant had been convicted twice previously of felonies; if the court found the allegations to be true, the range of punishment would be raised to confinement from twenty-five to ninety-nine years or life. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp. 1989). Appellant claims that the trial court never made findings on the enhancement paragraphs; as a result, he argues, his sentence of thirty years was outside the range of punishment for his offense. The record shows that appellant entered pleas of true to the enhancement allegations. In addition, the judgment contains a recitation that the trial court found the allegations to be true.
        Article 42.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a judgment should reflect the finding or findings of the court. There is no requirement that the findings on the allegations in the enhancement paragraphs be made in open court. Cortez v. State, 756 S.W.2d 116, 117 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1988, no pet.). Recitations in the judgment are binding in the absence of direct proof to the contrary. Martinez v. State, 504 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).
        In the present cause, the judgment recited that the trial court found the allegations in the enhancement paragraphs of the indictment to be true. We find nothing in the record to show that the recitation in the judgment is contrary to the Court's actual findings. As a result, the range of punishment was from twenty-five to ninety-nine years' confinement or life. We conclude that the trial court in sentencing appellant to thirty years' confinement, did not assess punishment outside the range authorized by law. Appellant's second point of error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
                                                          PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
881512F.U05
 
 
File Date[11-22-89]
File Name[881512F]