# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 19

- 00835

- CR
Jesus GONZALEZ
- GALLEGOS , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 399th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CR6182 Honorable Frank J. Castro , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice Delivered a nd Filed: March 3, 2021
AFFIRMED Jesus Gonzalez

- Gallegos appeals his underlying criminal conviction and asserts he is entitled to either an acquittal or a new trial because the search of his vehicle was illegal

. We affir m. BACKGROUND On the evening of March 4, 2019, San Antonio Police Sergeant David Acosta ran the license plate of a vehicle traveling in front of him. Upon learning the license plate showed an expired registration and outs tanding traffic warrants, Acosta stopped the vehicle, which was being driven by Gonzalez

- Gallegos . After Acosta confirmed Gonzalez

- Gallegos was the individual04

- 19

- 00835

- CR

- 2

- named in the warrants, he placed Gonzalez

- Gallegos i n handcuffs and seated him in the rear seat of the patrol car. Because Acos ta smelled marijuana coming from inside the vehicle, Acosta conducted a search of the vehicle and found a vape pen that fi el d

- tested positive for THC

. Gonzalez

- Gallegos was later charged with and convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance

. ANALYSIS On appeal, Gonzalez

- Gallegos contends the search of his vehicle was illegal. However, Gonzalez

- Gallegos did not raise this issue at trial. Instead, Gonzalez

- Gallegos argued there was no reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and the traffic stop was, therefore, illegal. In response, the State argues Gonzalez

- Gallegos waived his argument on appeal because his objection at trial does not comport with the argument he raises here. We agree with the State. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific grounds for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the request, objection, or motion. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1(a)(1) (A) ; Gibson v. State , 541 S.W.3d 164, 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); Gauna v. State , 534 S.W.3d 7, 10 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2017, no pet.). In other words, the complaining party must advise the trial court of what he w ants and why, and he must do so in a manner that allows the trial
court to understand the complain t. Gauna , 534 S.W.3d at 10. If the complaint made on appeal does not comport with the complaint made in the trial court, the complaint is not preserved for consideration on appeal

. Gibson , 541 S.W.3d at 166; Heidelberg v. State , 144 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Gonzales

- Gallegos did not contest the legality of the search of his vehicle at trial. Therefore, w e conclude Gonzalez

- Gallegos did not preserve t his complaint on appeal.04

- 19

- 00835

- CR

- 3

- CONCLUSION We overrule Gonzalez

- Gallegos’ s sole issue on appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice Do not publish