Sherman Robinson v. The State of Texas Appeal from 187th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-16-00309-CR Sherman ROBINSON, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015CR5888 Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 14, 2017 AFFIRMED Sherman Robinson appeals his conviction for felon in possession of a firearm. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04 (West 2011). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. ANALYSIS In his sole issue on appeal, Robinson asserts that the manner and purpose of the police officer’s stop of Robinson violated his Fourth Amendment rights in that it constituted a “stop and frisk.” Therefore, Robinson contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress. The State responds that Robinson failed to preserve error. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a) 04-16-00309-CR (to preserve an issue for review, a party must make a timely objection and obtain an adverse ruling). On the day of jury selection, Robinson filed a motion to suppress the tangible evidence and his statements. The trial court did not conduct a pretrial hearing on the motion and ruled it would be carried with the trial. The State’s sole trial witness was San Antonio Police Officer Scott Marshall who testified about his encounter with Robinson, his decision to frisk Robinson based on a bulge in his waistband, and his discovery of a gun on Robinson’s person. Although Robinson’s defense counsel did raise some objections during Officer Marshall’s testimony, they were hearsay objections and other objections that do not comport with the grounds stated in the motion to suppress, i.e., violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure. For example, Robinson objected to Officer Marshall’s testimony about finding a bag of marijuana and a scale on Robinson’s person as “prejudicial,” and objected to admission of the patrol car videotape as “prejudicial and extraneous.” When a trial court does not rule on a motion to suppress, but carries it with the trial, the defendant must object each time any evidence subject to the motion is offered in order to preserve error; in addition, the objection must comport with a ground raised in the motion to suppress. Palacios v. State, 319 S.W.3d 68, 72 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, pet. ref’d). Here, the record reflects that Robinson failed to obtain a ruling from the trial court on his motion to suppress, either before trial or during trial by raising objections comporting with the suppression grounds stated in his motion. Therefore, Robinson has failed to preserve his issue for appellate review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
