## NO. 12-08-00333-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

JAMES EAR L WILLIAMS, § APPEAL F ROM THE 114TH APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF
TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION A jury convicted A

ppellant, J ames E ar l Wil liams, of the third deg ree felony offe nse of driving while intox icated a nd assessed his punishment at imprisonment for ten year s and a $10,000 fine. I n h i s first issue, Appellant complains “ the trial cour t erre d in allowing the unreda cted videotape of a traff

ic stop to be admitted in e vidence .” I n his second issue, Appe llant contends the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in a llo wi ng th e ar

re sti ngof fi c e r t o te sti fy

that pe rf or manc e on fi e ld s ob ri e ty

te sts
c ou ld b e c or

re late d to a

sp e c if ic blo od a lc oh ol c on c e ntr a tio n. We a ff ir m.

B ACKG ROUND On Oc tob e r 1 2, 20 07 , T roo per J on ath an P ete rs o f t he T ex as H ighw ay P atr ol st op peda veh icle in the westbound lane of Interstate 20 f or trave ling 86 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour zone. He identifie d Appellant as the driver of the vehicle. The stop was recor ded on the camera rec ording sy stem of the troope r’s patro l ca r. W h en Appellant produc ed his driver ’s license and insuranc e information, Troope r Peters de tected w hat he ch ar ac t er i z ed as a strongodor of a lcohol. Trooper Peters then a dminist ere d field sobriety tests to Appellant, including the horizontal ga ze ny stag mus2

te st, the wa lk a

nd tur n te st, and

the on e le g sta

nd te st. B a se d o n A

pp e lla nt’ s p e rf or manc e on the se te s ts , Peters conc luded that Appellant wa s intox icated a nd arr ested him for dr iving while intoxicated.

V IDE O O F T RAF F I C S T OP I n h is first issue, Appellant complains the trial c ourt err ed in allowing an unre dacte d videotape of

the t ra ff i c s t o p to be admitted into evidence . Appellant ar g ues that the unre dacte d videotape c ontains the office r’s observations of Appellant’s condition a nd constitutes a violation of the hea rsay rule. A trial c o u rt’ s d e c is io n r e g ar d in g th e a dmi s s io n o f e v id e n c e is r e v ie w e d f o r a b u s e of discretion. Re

se ndi z v . St ate , 112 S.W .3d 541, 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). A trial cour t’s ruling should be aff

irmed if it is within t he zone of re asonable disag ree ment . M os es v . St ate , 105 S.W .3d 622, 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). I n h is b ri e f, Ap pe lla

nt d oe s n ot i de nti fy

the sp e c if

ic po rt ion s o f t

he vid e ota

pe he c la ims to be objec tionable, but asser ts only that “the t rooper narr ated his wa y throug h the videotape .” Howeve r, eve n if he ha d complained in his brief about spec ific portions of the videotape, A ppellant did not object when the tr ial court a dmitted the videotape into evidenc e. I n o rd e r t o pr e se rv e a c omp la int fo r re vie w, a pa rt y mus t ha ve pr e se nte d to the tr ia l c ourt a tim e ly ob je c tio n, re qu e st, or

mot ion statin g sp e c if

ic g ro un ds fo r t

he ru lin g so ug ht, un le ss t

he sp e c if ic g rounds were appare nt from the context. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33 .1 (a )( 1) (A ); Mo sle y v . St ate , 983 S.W .2d 249, 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Appellant failed to pre serve err or, if any , in the admission of the videotape b y

failing to object to its admissi on at trial. Ther efor e, we have nothingto review

. Appellant’s f

irst issue is overruled.

C O R R EL A TIO N O F P ER FOR M A N C E O F F I E L D S OB RI E T Y T E S T S T O B L OOD A LCO HO L L EVELS I n h is s e c on d is su e , App e lla nt c on te nd s th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in a llo wi ng Tro op er Pe te rs to te sti fy that per fo rm anc e on

fi e ld s ob ri e ty

te sts c ou ld b e c or

re late d to sp e c if

ic blo od a lc oh ol l e ve ls. Ag ain, Appellant f

ailed to object to admission of this testimony at trial. S

e e T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1(a) (1)( A). The ref

ore, w e have nothing to re view. Appe llant’s second issue is over ruled.3 D I S P OS I T I ON Th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is affirm ed

.



### BI LL BASS J ustice

Opinion delivere d Aug ust 19, 2009. P an el con si st edof W

orthen , C .J., G ri

f f i t h, J., andB ass, R eti red Ju st i ce , Tw elf

t h C ou rt of A pp ea l s, Ty le r, sitt ing by as sig n m e n t.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)