Wallace Greer v. State ( 2006 )

Opinion filed June 22, 2006

Opinion filed June 22, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                                                          No. 11-04-00264-CR

                                                    __________

                                      WALLACE GREER, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 385th District Court

                                                        Midland County, Texas

                                                 Trial Court Cause No. CR29626

                                                                   O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Wallace Greer of the offense of possession of less than one gram of cocaine, a state jail felony.  The trial court assessed punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for two years, but the court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for five years.  In conjunction with the community supervision, the trial court ordered appellant confined for seventy-five days or until transferred to a substance abuse felony treatment facility, where he was to be confined for six months to one year.  We affirm.

In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to suppress the evidence B a crack pipe and a small amount of crack cocaine B which was seized during appellant=s detention by police.  The State asserts that appellant waived any error in the admission of this evidence.  We agree with the State. 

The record shows that appellant filed a motion to suppress and that the trial court denied the motion.  These actions would have preserved the suppression issue for review without further objection by appellant during the trial.  However, when the crack pipe and the cocaine were offered into evidence, defense counsel stated respectively:  ANo objection@ and AWithout objection.@ The exhibits were admitted into evidence.

The court of criminal appeals has held in similar situations that the suppression issue was not preserved for review.  See Moody v. State, 827 S.W.2d 875, 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Dean v. State, 749 S.W.2d 80, 82-83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); McGrew v. State, 523 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975).  When evidence is offered during trial and defense counsel affirmatively represents that the defendant has Ano objection@ to the evidence, any error in the admission of the evidence is waived even if the error had been previously preserved by a motion to suppress.  Moody, 827 S.W.2d at 889; Dean, 749 S.W.2d at 82-83; Harris, 656 S.W.2d at 484; McGrew, 523 S.W.2d at 680-81.  Because defense counsel affirmatively stated that he had no objection to the introduction of the crack pipe and the cocaine, we hold that appellant waived any error with respect to the admission of that evidence. Consequently, we overrule appellant=s sole issue on appeal. 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

JIM R. WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE

June 22, 2006

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.