NO. 07-02-0185-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JULY 3, 2003

______________________________ W ELDON W YKE TURPIN, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 184TH DISTRI CT COURT OF HARRIS CO UNTY; NO. 868868; HON ORABLE JAN KR OCKER, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION
Followi ng his plea of not g uilty, app ellant Weldon W yke Turpin was con victe d by a jury of kidn apping, e nhanced, and punishment was asses sed at confinement for l ife. Presenting two points of error, appell an t contends the trial court erred in (1) denying his1 845 S.W .2d 874 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992) (en ba nc) (hold ing tha t it was error to admit

evidence of a prior conv iction for impeac hment purposes becau se it h ad lit tle p roba tive value on the defenda nt’s credibility). 2 Theus motion, 1 and (2) allowing t he State to introduce a v ideo-taped statement made by him in its ent irety for the purposes of rebu ttal. Based on the rationale ex pressed herei n, we affi rm. Appellant

does not chall enge the sufficienc y of the evidence. Thus , only the facts necessary to our analysis of the issues will be discussed. Appellant was charged by indictment

with ag gravated kidnapping of complainant, a 28 year ol d female, enhanced by prior convicti ons for aggravated rape and robbery. Among other witnesses, complainant and appellant testified at trial; however, appellant’s a ccount of the events was substantially differentthan complainant’ s. At the time of the offense, ap pellant was wearing an ankle monitor whi ch he r

emoved after h is br

other told hi m poli ce we re loo king for him

. By his first poi nt of error, appel lant contends the trial court erred when it denied his Theu s motion. In response, the State contends appe llant failed to preserve the err or fo r review on appeal. We agree wit h the State for the following reasons. Although appel lant presents a good discussion of his Theus motion, in his

brief, he does not reference us to the portion of the re cord wher e t rial counsel pres ented an objection to admission of the evidence which h e now c laim s sho uld n ot ha ve been admitted. See Tex. R. Ev id. 103(1). Also, the brief does not contain appropr iate citatio ns and references to the recor d as is required by Rule 3 8.1(f), (h) of theTexas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Lape v. State,3

893 S.W.2d 949, 953 (Tex.App.--H ouston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref’d) (holding that nothing
was preserv ed for review because appellant ’s brief did no t direct the appellate court to the proper place i n the record w here the alleg ed error w as presented). Moreover, the State direc ts our attention to appellant’s mot ion in limi ne which t he trial court granted, except that it al lowed the State to questi on appellant aboutfelonies or cr imes of moral turpit ude on cross- examination. Howe ver, a r uling on a moti on in limine i s not sufficient to pres erve e rror f or revi ew. McD uff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 618 (Tex.C r.App. 1997), cert. denied , 522 U.S. 844, 118 S.C t. 125, 139 L.Ed.2d 75 (1997); Brumfiel d v. State, 18 S.W .3d 9 21, 9 24 (T ex. A pp.--Beaumont 2000, pet. ref’d); see also Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Accordingly , appellant’s first point of err or is ov erruled. By his second poi nt of error, appel lant contends the trial court committed reversible
error when it al lowed the State to introduce his vid eo-taped statement i n its entir ety made before his indict ment for pur poses of rebuttal. Then , by his argument, he expands his contention and argues the evidence presented b y video/audio tape (1) was highly prejudi cial, (2) exceeded the scope of pe rmissible rebuttal, and (3) was erroneously admitted because the trial court did not require the Sta te to “cull out the inadmissible portions

. . . .” Appellant ’s third ar gument amounts to hi s concession that some portions of the tape wer

e admissible. Before the tape was played tothe jury , in response to a question from the trial court, counsel for the State and appel lant agreed t hat the court repor ter “need not r

ecord the4

sound portion of the tape.” Based on the agreement of the attorneys, the court repo rter did notrecord and tr

anscribe the au dio portion of the tape . Resultantl y, appellant does not make a ny references in his bri ef to the record poi nting out w hich portions of the tape he claim s were ina dmissible. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); see also Harris v. State, 827 S.W.2d 949, 958 (Tex.C r.App. 1992), cert. denied , 506 U

. S. 943, 113 S.Ct. 381, 121 L.Ed.2d 292 (1992) (holding the complaint on appeal was not preserved f or review where appellant

did not cite any

place in the r

ecord wher

e complaint was made in the tr ial court); Garcia v. State. 96 0 S.W.2d 151, 157 (Tex.App.--C orpus Chri sti 1 997, no pet.) (n oting
a ppellant’s contention was not preserv ed for review because he did not make p ag e references to the record to support his argument the trial court erred in n ot granting his motion to withdra w his gu il ty plea); see also Castillo v. State, 810 S.W.2d 180, 182 n.1 (Tex.Cr.A pp. 1990) (explai ning the Cour t need not addressarguments not supported by reference to the recor d whe re an a rgume nt was made to the trial court). Because appellant’s brief does not identify w hich portions of the audio wer

e inadmissibl e, the point is not preser

ved for our r

eview. Point of error

two is overrule d. Accordingl y, the judg ment of the trial court is affirmed.
Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish

.