John Vanexcel v. State ( 2010 )

NO. 07-09-0281-CR
NO. 07-09-0282-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
NOVEMBER 2, 2010
______________________________
JOHN VANEXCEL,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_____________________________
FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NOS. 46,760-B, 46,761-B; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING
______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant, John Vanexcel, appeals his convictions for possession of marijuana
(46,760-B) and possession with intent to deliver cocaine (46,761-B). Through five
issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to
suppress. We affirm.
In general, when a court overrules a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, the
defendant need not object to the same evidence in order to preserve the error on
appeal. Brown v. State, 183 S.W.3d 728, 741 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet.
ref'd) (citing Moraguez v. State, 701 S.W.2d 902, 904 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986)). However,
when a defendant affirmatively states that he has "no objection" to the admission of the
complained of evidence, the defendant waives any error in the admission of the
evidence. Brown, 183 S.W.3d at 741; see also Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481, 484
(Tex.Crim.App. 1983) (holding that appellant's complaint that the trial court erred in
overruling his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of illegal seizures was
rendered moot when State offered complained of evidence and defense counsel
affirmatively stated "no objection"). Here, the record reflects that appellant obtained an
adverse ruling on his pretrial motion to suppress. However, when the State offered the
offending evidence during the bench trial, appellant's trial counsel waived any error in
the admission of the evidence by affirmatively stating no objection. See Brown, 183
S.W.3d at 741. Therefore, we overrule all of appellant’s issues as an attack on the
motion to suppress ruling.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
2