Kornegay, Rodney Craig v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed November 8, 2013.
    S   In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-12-01281-CR
    RODNEY CRAIG KORNEGAY, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
    Kaufman County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 11CL-0501-2
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices O’Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans
    Opinion by Justice O’Neill
    The State charged appellant Rodney Craig Kornegay, by information, with three separate
    drug offenses: (1) intentionally and knowingly possessing a dangerous drug, namely celecoxib,
    without a prescription; (2) intentionally and knowingly possessing a dangerous drug, namely,
    promethazine hydrochloride, without a prescription; and (3) intentionally and knowingly
    possessing marijuana in an amount of two ounces or less.       The State later amended the
    indictment based on previous misinformation. The amended indictment charged appellant with
    (1) intentionally and knowingly possessing a dangerous drug, namely promethazine, without a
    prescription; (2) knowingly possessing a controlled substance, “namely, a material, compound,
    mixture, or preparation in an amount of less than 28 grams, that contained not more than 300
    milligrams of dihydrocodeine, or any of its salts, per 100 milliliters or not more than 15
    milligrams in dosage unit . . .”; and (3) intentionally and knowingly possessing a usable quantity
    of marijuana in an amount of two ounces or less.
    After the jury heard evidence relating to count two but before the State and defense
    closed their cases, the State filed a motion to abandon count two in the information. Defense
    counsel stated on the record he had no objection to the State abandoning the issue. The trial
    court granted the State’s motion to abandon.
    After two more State’s witnesses testified, appellant moved for a mistrial, arguing the
    jury had become unfairly biased against appellant because of prejudicial and confusing evidence
    regarding count two. The trial court overruled appellant’s motion for mistrial.
    The jury subsequently acquitted appellant of count one, but convicted him on count three
    for intentionally and knowingly possessing a usable amount of marijuana. The jury assessed
    punishment at 180 days confinement in county jail and a $2,000 fine.
    In a single issue, appellant argues his constitutional right to a fair trial by an unbiased
    jury was violated when the jury heard evidence relating to an offense the State later abandoned.
    We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    To preserve error for appellate review, a defendant must lodge a timely, specific
    objection. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1). Further, the complaining party must object at the earliest
    possible opportunity and obtain an adverse ruling. Davis v. State, 
    177 S.W.3d 355
    , 363 (Tex.
    App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.).
    The record shows appellant first stated he had no objection to the abandonment of count
    two in the information. Only after two more State witnesses testified did he object and move for
    a mistrial. Appellant failed to object at the earliest possible opportunity to allow the trial court to
    consider his complaint. And although appellant has framed his issue as a constitutional one,
    which we question, constitutional issues may be waived by failing to timely raise the issue at
    –2–
    trial. See Briggs v. State, 
    789 S.W.2d 918
    , 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Lytle v. State, No. 05-
    10-01134-CR, 
    2012 WL 266450
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not
    designated for publication). Accordingly, appellant’s sole issue is overruled. We affirm the trial
    court’s judgment.
    /Michael J. O'Neill/
    MICHAEL J. O’NEILL
    JUSTICE
    Do Not Publish
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47
    121281F.U05
    –3–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    RODNEY CRAIG KORNEGAY, Appellant                   On Appeal from the County Court at Law
    No. 2, Kaufman County, Texas
    No. 05-12-01281-CR        V.                       Trial Court Cause No. 11CL-0501-2.
    Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                       Justices Lang-Miers and Evans participating.
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered this 8th day of November, 2013.
    /Michael J. O'Neill/
    MICHAEL J. O’NEILL
    JUSTICE
    –4–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-12-01281-CR

Filed Date: 11/8/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015