Rodriguez, Anselmo Flores Jr. v. State ( 2002 )

  In The

Court of Appeals

For The  

First District of Texas  

____________

NO. 01-01-00914-CR

____________

ANSELMO RODRIGUEZ, Appellant  

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 400th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 33848a

---

O P I N I O N

          In a bench trial, the court found appellant, Anselmo Rodriguez, guilty of felony possession of a controlled substance and assessed punishment at 25 years’ confinement. In his sole point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. We affirm.

Background

           In response to complaints about street traffic and drug trafficking, a detective with the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s office investigated appellant by conducting surveillance of his trailer home on four separate occasions. One evening, during the surveillance of appellant’s trailer, the detective observed 27 vehicles come and go from the trailer in a 90-minute period. Each vehicle was parked at appellant’s trailer for about two minutes. As each vehicle drove up, appellant would walk up to the vehicle, lean into the window, and then turn and go back into the trailer.

          On October 12, 2000, the detective drove to appellant’s trailer. While the detective was parked in appellant’s driveway, appellant came out of the trailer and approached the car. The detective never knocked on appellant’s door or tried to get appellant’s attention. The detective identified himself and asked appellant for some identification. Appellant retrieved his identification from the trailer and presented it to the detective. The detective then informed appellant of the neighbors’ complaints, which appellant acknowledged. The detective then asked appellant if he had any drugs in the house, and appellant responded that he had some “coke” for personal use. Appellant volunteered to get the drugs. Appellant went back into the trailer and retrieved a baggie of material that tested positive for cocaine. As a result, the detective arrested appellant for possession of cocaine and secured the premises while a search warrant was obtained.

          Two hours later, with a signed search warrant, the detective searched appellant’s trailer home and found 25 additional grams of cocaine.

Motion to Suppress

          Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found at his trailer home, alleging that the address on the warrant was erroneous and that the detective did not have probable cause to support the search warrant. The trial court did not rule on the motion to suppress. In his sole point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant issued upon a supporting affidavit that lacked probable cause.

                      When no adverse ruling on the motion to suppress is obtained and the evidence is admitted into evidence without objection, no error is preserved for review. Nelson v. State, 626 S.W.2d 535, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Sims v. State, 833 S.W.2d 281, 284 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d). Even when an adverse ruling has been obtained, if during trial the defendant affirmatively asserts he has “no objection” to the admission of the complained of evidence, then he waives any error in the admission of the evidence despite the pre-trial ruling. Dean v. State, 749 S.W.2d 80, 82-83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (en banc)              .  

          In this case, no hearing was held regarding the motion to suppress. Furthermore, in each instance when evidence was admitted, the defense counsel stated, “We have no objection.” As a result, the crime lab report, a beaker and cup with cocaine residue, cocaine, and crack cocaine all found at appellant’s trailer home were admitted into evidence. Thus, even if the trial court had denied appellant’s motion to suppress, appellant affirmatively waived any error in the admission of the evidence. We overrule appellant’s sole point of error.Conclusion

          We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                                  Adele Hedges

                                                                                  Justice

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Keyes, and Duggan.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.