Kelly Richard Unterburger v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                 IN THE
    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-12-00361-CR
    KELLY RICHARD UNTERBURGER,
    Appellant
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    From the 18th District Court
    Johnson County, Texas
    Trial Court No. F45846
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Kelly Richard Unterburger was charged and convicted of possession of a
    controlled substance, cocaine, less than one gram. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §
    481.115(a), (b) (West 2010). He was sentenced to two years in State Jail, which was
    suspended, and placed on community supervision for five years. We affirm the trial
    court’s judgment.
    Unterburger and his girlfriend were stopped by a DPS trooper for speeding.
    After obtaining consent to search the vehicle from Unterburger’s girlfriend, who was
    the owner of the vehicle, the DPS trooper located various drug paraphernalia and
    cocaine residue in a white bag in the back of the vehicle. Unterburger admitted to
    possession of a black toiletry bag within the white bag, having a white bag similar to the
    white bag in the vehicle, and having packed the white bag.
    On appeal, Unterburger argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain
    extraneous offense evidence, that being drug paraphernalia, because it was offered to
    prove character conformity in violation of Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. A
    trial court's ruling on the admissibility of extraneous offenses is reviewed under an
    abuse-of-discretion standard. De La Paz v. State, 
    279 S.W.3d 336
    , 343 (Tex. Crim. App.
    2009); Prible v. State, 
    175 S.W.3d 724
    , 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). As long as the trial
    court's ruling is within the “zone of reasonable disagreement,” there is no abuse of
    discretion, and the trial court's ruling will be upheld. De La 
    Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 343
    –44;
    Montgomery v. State, 
    810 S.W.2d 372
    , 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (op. on rh'g).
    It appears that Unterburger takes issue with all the drug paraphernalia evidence
    admitted, that being State’s Exhibits 2-25. However, at trial, objections were raised only
    as to Exhibits 7-10 and 17, 18, and 21.           To the extent Unterburger contests the
    admissibility of any exhibit other than these seven exhibits, those arguments are not
    preserved for our review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1.
    Unterburger v. State                                                                Page 2
    Unterburger objected to the admission of various objects, and photographs of
    those objects, found inside the white bag. Those objects are: a plastic gum container
    and the photograph thereof; a photograph of white powder in a plastic baggie which
    was found in the plastic gum container; a Tupperware container with a crusty white
    residue and the photograph thereof; and cotton balls and the photograph thereof.
    To preserve a complaint about the illegal seizure of evidence, a defendant must
    either file a motion to suppress and obtain a ruling on the motion or timely object when
    the State offers the evidence at trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); TEX. R. EVID. 103(a)(1);
    Ross v. State, 
    678 S.W.2d 491
    , 493 (Tex. Crim. App.1984); Ratliff v. State, 
    320 S.W.3d 857
    ,
    860–61 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref'd). If the defendant waits until the State
    offers the evidence at trial, the objection to the evidence must be made before a witness
    gives substantial testimony about it. See Marini v. State, 
    593 S.W.2d 709
    , 714 (Tex. Crim.
    App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (explaining that an objection to evidence “must be urged at the
    earliest opportunity”); 
    Ratliff, 320 S.W.3d at 261
    .
    Prior to the offer and admission of the photographs and objects, the trooper
    testified about each of the objects: what it looked like, where it was found, and what its
    significance was to the trooper, all without objection. No objection was raised until
    first, the photograph of the object, and next, the object itself, was offered into evidence.
    Unterburger v. State                                                                   Page 3
    This is too late. Thus, Unterburger’s complaints as to State’s Exhibits 7-10, 17, 18, and
    21 are waived.1
    Unterburger’s sole issue is overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
    TOM GRAY
    Chief Justice
    Before Chief Justice Gray,
    Justice Davis, and
    Justice Scoggins
    Affirmed
    Opinion delivered and filed December 12, 2013
    Do not publish
    [CR25]
    1Nevertheless, because the State had to prove Unterburger knew that he possessed cocaine, see Poindexter
    v. State, 
    153 S.W.3d 402
    , 405 (Tex. Crim. App.2005); Santiesteban-Pileta v. State, 10-12-00154-CR, 2013 Tex.
    App. LEXIS 7515 (Tex. App.—Waco June 20, 2013, no pet.) (publish), the paraphernalia was admissible to
    prove knowledge. See TEX. R. EVID. 404(b).
    Unterburger v. State                                                                                 Page 4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-12-00361-CR

Filed Date: 12/12/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015