Jason Langford v. State ( 2006 )

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 30, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 30, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00978-CR

____________

JASON LANGFORD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 981,469

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant Jason Langford pleaded guilty to one count of intoxication assault. Following a presentence investigation hearing, the trial court sentenced him to five years in prison.  In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues the trial court committed reversible error by relying on hearsay statements of unidentified police officers regarding a prior conviction.  We affirm.

I.  Factual and Procedural Background

While driving home from a Houston Texans football game on November 24, 2002, appellant lost control of his vehicle and drove into a field off the Sam Houston Parkway. The vehicle flipped over several times, throwing appellant from the car and severely injuring his front-seat passenger. Appellant was transported to the hospital, where a blood test revealed his blood‑alcohol content to be well above the legal limit.^[1]

Appellant was charged with intoxication assault.  Without an agreed punishment recommendation from the State, appellant entered a plea of guilty and filed a motion requesting community supervision. Prior to imposing sentence, the trial court ordered a presentence investigation report (APSI@), pursuant to article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.^[2]  The report included an addendum containing a charge information report from the Harris County District Attorney=s office concerning appellant=s September 8, 2001 arrest for driving while intoxicated.  At the presentence investigation hearing, appellant objected to Athe addendum concerning the facts of the prior DWI,@ and the trial court overruled his objection.  Following the hearing, the trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to five years in prison.

II.  Discussion

In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling appellant=s hearsay objection to evidence regarding the underlying facts of appellant=s September 8, 2001 conviction for driving while intoxicated. However, the record does not indicate that appellant made such an objection.  The entire discussion regarding the addendum to the PSI is as follows:

COURT:       Defense have any objection to the PSI?

COUNSEL:   Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:       Okay.

COUNSEL:   First, I object to the addendum concerning the facts of the prior DWI.

COURT:       Overruled.

Appellant=s counsel then moved on to correct a misstated date elsewhere in the PSI, and did not revisit the subject.

As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context.  Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(a)(A).  Here, the record does not show that appellant stated a hearsay objection.

When the specific basis for the objection can be determined from the context, a general objection may be enough to preserve error.  Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).  But if an objection is subject to multiple interpretations, error is waived unless the complaint is articulated to the trial court in a manner that Astate[s] the grounds for the ruling . . . with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint . . . .@  Taylor v. State, 939 S.W.2d 148, 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (en banc); Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.  On appeal, appellant effectively concedes that the basis of the objection is not apparent from the context, and is instead subject to multiple interpretations.  Although appellant argues that the objection was a Ahearsay objection to grapevine evidence,@ appellant admits in his brief that he A . . . is not quite sure whether the trial objection was grounded upon hearsay; it appears that a more appropriate objection would have been confrontation.@ 

Not only is the basis of the objection unknown, but the record also fails to identify the particular evidence that is the subject of the objection.  The addendum consists of Adocuments regarding the charge information for the offense of Driving While Intoxicated which occurred September 8, 2001.@  These documents bear the headings, ACharge Information,@ ASummary of Facts,@ and AWitness/Complainant Data.@  It is not clear if appellant objected to the inclusion of the entire addendum, to consideration of all facts found in the addendum, or only to the section entitled ASummary of Facts.@

Finally, there is no indication that the trial court relied on any information found in the addendum that was not also placed in evidence by appellant=s own testimony.  Under cross-examination by the State, Appellant admitted, without objection, that he had previously pled guilty to driving while intoxicated and for Ahit-and-run,@and that he had previously been placed on probation for those prior offenses.  Appellant waived objection to proof of the prior convictions when he admitted them while testifying during the punishment phase.  Simmons v. State, 493 S.W.2d 937, 940 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). Although the trial court affirmatively stated that it considered evidence of appellant=s prior conviction and probation when making his sentencing determination,^[3] such evidence was properly before the trial court in the form of testimonial evidence.

Because appellant=s general objection is too vague to identify the evidence to which it is directed or the grounds for the objection, we conclude that appellant=s sole issue is waived.

For the above-stated reasons, the ruling of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/      Eva M. Guzman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed May 30, 2006.

Panel consists of Justice Fowler, Edelman, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

---

^[1]  The Presentence Investigation Report stated appellant=s blood-alcohol content was 0.282, whereas the complaint indicated it was 0.24.  Regardless, Aintoxication@ is defined as Ahaving an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.@  Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 49.01(2)(B) (Vernon 2005).

^[2]  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 42.12 ' 9 (Vernon Supp. 2005)

^[3]  Before pronouncing the sentence, the trial court stated, AOne of the things about this case isCI keep coming back to is that after having gotten probation for causing an accident, leaving the scene, and being intoxicated, within two monthsCless than two months you are in an accident which, but for the grace of God you [and your passenger] would be dead . . . .@