Opinion
No. 05-06-00110-CR
Opinion Filed October 24, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 23530-86. Affirmed.
Before Justices MOSELEY, FRANCIS, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dennis Wayne Pratt appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. A jury found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at ten years in prison. In six issues, appellant generally complains the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the drugs and in admitting the "tainted physical evidence" at trial. We affirm. The evidence at the suppression hearing showed that Officers Troy Kelly and Steve Tigert of the Northeast Area Drug Interdiction Task Force went to the residence of Douglas Wayne Dudley as part of a drug investigation. When they knocked on the door, Dudley called for them to come inside. The officers went to a converted garage where they found Dudley and two other men. A loaded shotgun was against the wall, and the officers secured it. Dudley was lying on the couch, and when he stood up, a bag of methamphetamine fell to the floor. Officers told Dudley they were going to arrest him. While the officers were talking to Dudley, appellant entered the house and called out. Appellant entered the room. He was wearing coveralls, and the officers noticed a knife in appellant's pocket. While officers were patting down appellant for weapons, he removed something from his left pocket and clenched it in his fist. The officers asked him to release the object in his hand, and appellant refused. The officers were able to get appellant to open his hand and found a prescription pill bottle wrapped in black tape. Officer Tigert testified that he normally found "some type of controlled substance" in such containers. He opened the pill bottle and found three small plastic bags. Two of the bags contained methamphetamine. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the drugs, arguing they were obtained as part of an illegal search. After hearing the evidence at the suppression hearing, the trial court denied the motion. At trial, when the State offered into evidence State's Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 — the two plastic baggies containing methamphetamine and the lab report showing the substances contained methamphetamine — defense counsel expressly said he had "no objection." After the trial court overrules a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, the defendant need not object to that same evidence at trial to preserve error on appeal. Dean v. State, 749 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988); De Hoyos v. State, 81 S.W.3d 853, 854 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.). However, when the defendant affirmatively asserts during trial that he has "no objection" to the challenged evidence, he waives any error in its admission despite the pretrial ruling. Moraguez v. State, 701 S.W.2d 902, 904 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). Because defense counsel specifically stated he had no objection to the admission of the drugs, this issue is not preserved for review. See Mikel v. State, 167 S.W.3d 556, 557 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (concluding illegal seizure issue waived when defense counsel said he had "no objection" to admission of drugs at trial, despite adverse pretrial ruling). We reject all issues. We affirm the trial court's judgment.