1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 07- 095- CR
L AM AR CU S P AULW I L L I AM S AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 371STDI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on A ppe l l ant La M ar cusPau l W i l l i am s app ea l s hi s con vi ct i on f orpos se ss i on ofa con t r ol l ed su bs t anc e— coc ai ne— i n th e am ountofonegr am orm or e, but l es s t han f our gr am s. A ppe l l ant ’ s se nt enc i ng r ang e w asen han ce d byt w o pr i or con vi ct i ons . A ppe l l ant pl ea ded not gui l t y, but a j ury f ound A ppe l l ant gui l t y of2

th e c h a r ge . App e l l a nte l e c t e d t o ha vet het r i a l c ou rta s s e s sp un i s hm e n t, pl ea ded t r ue t o t he hab i t ual of f end er not i ce , and w ass ent enc ed t o t w ent y- f i ve yea r s’ co nf i nem ent i n th e I ns t i t ut i ona l D i vi si on oft he Texa s D epa rt m entof C ri m i n a l J u s ti c e . W e a ffir m . I I . Fac t ualan d Proce duralBac kground O n Apr i l 27, 2006 , Fort W ort h pol i ce exe cut ed a n ar cot i css ea r ch w ar r ant
on a r es i den ce . The pol i ce f ound A ppe l l ant
— w ho di d not l i ve atnorow n t he
r esi dence— l yi ng on t he l i vi ng r oom f l oor next t o hi s pr egnan tgi r l f r i end w ho w as s it t in g o n t h e c o u c h . T h ep o lic e f o u n d s e v e r a l ro c k so fc r a c kc o c a in e in p la in vi ew on t he f l oor . The p ol i cef ound ad di t i ona l r ock s ofcr ac k c oca i ne i n a

“ fry e r” a fe w fe e t a w a yfro m A p p e l l a n t a n d h i sg i rl fri e n d . A ppe l l ant gav e a w r i t t en st at em ent ac ce pt i ng r es pons i bi l i t y f or t he dr ugs f ound i n pl ai n vi ew . A ppe l l ant cl ai m s t hat an of f i ce rpr om i se d t hathi s gi r l f r i end
w oul d not be ar r est ed i f A ppel l antsi gned t he w r i t t en st at em ent . A ppel l antf i l ed
a p re tri a l m o ti o n to s u p p re s s . A tt he suppr essi on hear i ng, t he of f i cer t est i f i ed t hathe di d not r em em ber
e x a c t lyw h a tw a ss a id d u r in g h isin t e rv ie w o fA p p e lla n t . T h e o f f ic e rd id a d m it th a t du ri n g a p retri a l i n terv i e w h e told th e p ros e c u to r t h a t he h a d sta ted to A p p e lla n tt h a t , ifh e w r o t e o u t h iss t a t e m e n t , h isg ir lf r ie n d w o u ld n o tg o t o ja il. B u t th e n th e o ffice r te s ti fi e d th a t h e :3

hon est l y j ustdi d not r ecal l t he ci r cum st ances. I fyou w er e t o ask m e t o r eci t e t he conv er sat i on t hatm e and t he D ef endan thad t hat day , I co ul d not - - I c oul d notr em em bert he exa ctco nve r sa t i on. I do r em em ber t hat . . . hedi d e xpr es s i nt er es tab outhi s gi r l f r i end n o t - - y o u k n o w , n o t g o i n g to j a i l . St i l l l at eri n hi s t es t i m ony, t he of f i ce r st at ed, “I ca n sa y t hat I w oul d notha ve m a d e [su c h a p r o m i s e ].” A fte r th e h e a ri n g , th e tri a l c o u rt d e n i e d A p p e l l a n t’s
m o ti o n to s u p p re s s . A tt r i al , t he St at e o f f er ed A ppe l l ant ’ s si gne d s t ate m entad m i t t i ng pos se ss i on oft he cr ac k c oca i ne. D ef ens e c ouns elr es ponde d t o t he adm i ss i on o f A p p e l l a n t’ss ta te m e n t b ys ta ti n g , “N o o bj e c ti o n .”T h i sa p p e a l e n s u e d . I I I . D i sc us si on I n h i s s o l e p o i n t , Ap p e l l a n t c o mp l a i n s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r r ed by adm i t t i ng hi s si gne d s t at em ent . Appel l antar gue s t hat th e w ri t t en st at em ent
w a s p re d i c a te d o n a p ro m i s e n o t to a rre s t A p p e l l a n t’sg i rl fri e n d , a n d th e re fo re th e c o n fe s s i o n w a si n v o l u n ta ry . The St at e c ount er s t hatA ppe l l antw ai ved an y e r r orco nce r ni ng t he
a d m i ss i o n o f t h e sta tem e n t w h e n d e fen se co u n s e l s t a ted , “N o o bj e c ti o n ,” to t he adm i ssi on of t he st at em entas evi dence att r i al . W e agr ee w i t h t he S t at e. O r di nar i l y, by f i l i ng a m ot i on t o s uppr es s, a def end antpr es erveshi s r i ght t o com pl ai n of t he adm i ssi on of evi dence at t r i al even i f he f ai l s t o obj ectw hen th a t e v i d e n c e i si n tro d u c e d a t tri a l . D ea nv. S tate , 749 S . W . 2d 80, 83 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ); Mo rag u ez v. S tate , 701 S . W . 2d 902, 904 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp.4

1 9 8 6 ); G ea ri

ngv. S tate , 6 8 5 S .W .2 d 3 2 6 , 3 2 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ),
o verrule d

o no th er gro un ds b yWo o ds v. S tate , 956 S . W . 2d 33, 36 -38 ( Tex. C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). H o w e v e r , w h e n t h e d e f e n d a n t ’s a t t o r n e ya f f i r m a t iv e ly
s t a t e s t h a tt h e r e isn o o bje c t io n t o t h e a d m is s ib ilit yo ft h e e v id e n c e w h e n itis i nt r oduc ed att r i al

— t he r i ght to obj ec tt o i t s adm i ss i on on ap pea l i s w ai ved . D ean , 7 4 9 S .W .2 d a t 8 3 ; Moraguez , 7 0 1 S .W .2 d a t 9 0 4 ; G ea r i ng , 685 S. W . 2d
a t 3 2 9 . I n t hi s case, def ense counsel f i l ed a pr et r i al m ot i on t o suppr ess A p p e l l a n t’ss ta te m ent. H o w e v e r, w h e n d e fe n s e c o u n s e l s ta te d , “N o o bj e c ti o n ,” att he poi ntw hen t he pr os ec ut orof f er ed t he st at em ent i nt o evi den ce , A ppe l l ant
w a i v e d h i sri g h t to c o m p l a i n o n a p p e a l a b o u t i ts a d m i s s i b i l i ty . T h e re fo re , w e o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s s o l e p o i n t. I V . C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d A p p e l l a n t’ss o l e p o i n t, w e a ffir m t h e t r i a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL B: D A U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a y 1, 2008