NO. 07-08 -011 1-CR NO. 07-08 -011 2-CR NO. 07-08 -011 3-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D DE CE MB ER30, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ DAVID LONGO RIA, APP ELL ANT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO S. 2 004- 407,301 , 200 4- 407,304 , 200 4- 407,306 ; HON. BRADLEY UND ERW OOD, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL, HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. Memorandum Opinion Appel lan t, Dav id Long or ia, appeal s t he s entenc es impos ed for four conv icti ons of del iv er y of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance, co cai n e . A p pel lan t c hal len g es the a dmis si on of ev ide nce re lat ing to hismembershi p i n a g ang thatwas eli ci ted d ur ing a s entenc ing hear ing th atwas h ad b efo re th e be nc h. W e affi r m.2

By one is sue, appel lan t contend s that the t ri al cour t er re d i n admi tti ng ev ide nce of appel lan t’ s membershi p i n a p ri son g ang dur ing the sent enci ng hearing. Appel lan t ack now led g es that he di d notobj ectto the e v ide nce n o r d id h e r e q uesta l imi ti ng ins tr u ction. H ow ev er , app ell ant c ontendsthat the admis si on of thi s e v ide nce, w it hout prop er limitatio n, rend ered thes entencin g hea ring f und am ent ally unfair and a sks this Court to reve rse th e ju d gm e n t a s t o se n te n cin g an d rem a n d fo r a n e w se n te n cin g he a rin g. T he failure to object to the examina tion of w itnesse s or to the a dm ission of ev iden ce is not preser

v ed for appel lat e re v iew absen t a ti mely and spec ific obj ect ion rais ed dur ing tr ial and any

er ro r in the a dmis si on of the ev ide nce is w aiv ed by the failu re to ob ject. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 33 .1(a); Fan cher v. S t ate , 659 S.W .2d 836 , 839 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 3); Crock er v . St ate, 573 S.W .2d 190, 205 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1978) ; Sal as v . St ate, 486 S. W .2d 956 , 957 (Tex.Crim.App

. 197 2). Further, th is is true even th ough th e error may concern a c onst it uti onal r ig ht of the defendant. Se e M uni zv. S ta te, 851 S. W .2d 2 38, 2 55- 56 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 93); Ga uldin v. State , 683 S.W .2d 411 , 413 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 4); Rus sel l v. Stat e, 66 5 S. W .2d 7 71, 7 77- 78 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1983) ; Sh annon v . St ate, 567 S.W .2d 510 , 514 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 8). Appel lan t c ontendsthatthe ev ide nce that he w as a m ember of a pr is on g ang was so infla mmator

y and of such min imal rele v ance that it s a dmis si on w as fundamental er ro r becau se itdeni ed hi m a fair se ntenc ing hear ing

. Appel lan t re li es on D awson v . D ela w are, 503 U. S. 159, 166- 67, 112 S.C t. 1093, 117 L.Ed. 2d 309 (1 992) , as est abl ish in g tha t ev ide nce of ga ng membershi p w it hout ev ide nce that the g a n g h a s e ng ag ed i n unl awful act s o r has endorsed suc h acts is not re levant to any l eg it imat e s entenc ing co nsi derati on3

and is a v iol ati on of a defendant ’s F irst Amendment ri g hts

. W hil e appel lan t may be r ig ht in hisas ser

ti on th at t he ev ide nce compl ain ed of i n thi s c ase w as obj ect ion abl e under Dawson, we note that the defendant in Dawson ti mely asser ted objecti ons to t he admi ss ion of the evidence on the groun ds tha t the adm ission of the evidence would v iolate his First and F our teent h Amendmentr ig hts . See id. at 162. Appel lan t hasci ted n o aut hor ity that the a dmis si on of g ang membershi p dur ing se ntenc ing i s fundamenta l er ro r for w hic h no o bje ct io n a tt ri a l i s re qu ire d

. Fu rt h e r, we h a ve fo u n d n o su c h a u t h o ri ty. Therefore, we c oncl ude t hat a ppel lan t fail ed to preser v e the compl ain ed of error for our re v iew and w e, therefore, ov er ru le appel lan t’ s sol e is sue and aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.