Kenneth Ray Sowell v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 262nd District Court of Harris County

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 2, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-05-00864-CR

_______________

KENNETH RAY SOWELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1007515

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Kenneth Ray Sowell appeals a conviction for aggravated robbery[1] on the grounds that: (1) the trial court erred by submitting a definition of reasonable doubt to the jury venire panel in violation of Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); (2) the live identification line-up of appellant was unduly suggestive because the other participants in the line-up were physically dissimilar; and (3) the trial court erred by allowing testimony during the guilt phase that suggested extraneous offenses. However, because appellant failed to object to the trial court=s alleged definition of reasonable doubt,[2] the alleged line-up as being impermissibly suggestive,[3] or any of the testimony that he now complains suggested extraneous offenses,[4] his complaints are not preserved for our review. Accordingly, appellant=s three issues are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/ Richard H. Edelman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 2, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Frost.

Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

[1] A jury convicted appellant of aggravated robbery, found one enhancement paragraph true, and imposed a sentence of 70 years= confinement.

[2] See Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (holding that defendant failed to preserve error by not renewing his objection when the trial court rephrased its definition of reasonable doubt during voir dire).

[3] Perry v. State, 703 S.W.2d 668, 670B71 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (finding waiver because defendant failed to object or complain about the out-of-court identification procedure at trial).

[4] Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1).