NO. 07-09-00262-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL B AUGUST 6, 2010

BRET ALAN AVERY, APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; NO. 19,996-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., a nd CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Bret Alan Avery, appeals his conviction by jury for the offense of possession of a controlled s ubstance in a drug-free zone, 1 and sentence, enhanced by final conviction of a prior felony, 2 of seventeen years incarcer ation in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.

1 See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . §§ 481.115(a), (b), 481.134 (Vernon 2010).

2 See T EX

. P EN

. C ODE A NN . § 12.42(a)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2009).2 Appellant’s sole issue on appeal contends t hat the final felony conviction used to enhance his sentence was void and, therefore, its use was precluded to enhance his punishment. As such, we will li mit our discussion of the fact s to those relevant to the issue raised by appellant.
Following the jury’s verdict finding appella nt guilty of possession of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone, the case pr oceeded to punishment. Appellant pled true to the allegation of the prior final felony conviction contai ned in the indictment. The State introduced a 2 006 judgment convicting appellant of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. This judg ment indicates that the offense for which appellant was convicted was a first-degree fel ony, yet it also indicates that he was sentenced to serve two years incarceration in the Institutional Div ision of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. When this judgment was offered into evidence, appellant affirmatively stated that he had “no objection.”
On appeal, appellant contends that the two year sent ence in the 2006 judgment falls below the minimum sentence allowed for a first-degree felony and, therefore, is an illegal sentence that makes the entire judgment void and unavailable to enhance his present conviction. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 12.32(a) (Vernon Supp. 2009) (punishment range for first-degree felony is five to ninety-nine years, or life). Appellant correctly contends that “It is now axiomati c that the punishment assessed must always be within the minimum and maximum fixed by law.” Wilson v. State , 677 S.W.2d 518, 524 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). The only authority cited by appellant in support of his position is Wilson

.3 However, by failing to object to the alleged infirmity of the prior conviction used to enhance the sentence at the ti me of trial, appellant has waived the issue.
The failure to object at trial to the introduction of proof of a[n] allegedly infirm prior conviction precludes a def endant from ther eafter attacking a conviction that utilized the prior convicti on. If an objection is timely lodged on proper grounds, the trial court can fi nally determine, at trial, whether the prior conviction was permissibly ob tained and whether it is admissible as evidence.

Hill v. State , 633 S.W.2d 520, 525 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981); see also Spivey v. State , No. 05-09-00300-CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3133, at *14-*15 (Tex.App.--Dallas Apr. 29, 2010, no pet. h.) (“Failure to object to the admi ssion of prior convictions waives the right to collaterally attack the conviction on app eal.”). While the sentence imposed in Wilson was reversed because it was enhanced by an il legal sentence that was less than the minimum allowed by stat ute, the appellant in Wilson raised this issue in the trial court. See Wilson , 677 S.W.2d at 520. The duty to preserve an appella te issue regarding the validity of a prior conviction used to enhance a present sentence has continued to be upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Dietzman , 851 S.W.2d 304, 306 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) (prior convic tion found to have been void “would not be available to enhance Applicant’s punishment pr ovided the error was raised in the trial court”); Fullbright v. State , 818 S.W.2d 808, 809 (Tex.Crim.Ap p. 1991) (objection by defendant at trial preserved appellate comp laint of void enhancement conviction).4 Because appellant’s sole issue was not raised in the trial court, the issue has been waived and, therefore, pres ents nothing for our review. See Hill , 633 S.W.2d at 525. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not publish.