NO. 07- 03- 0014- CR IN THE COURT OF APP EALS FOR TH E SEVENTH D ISTR ICTOF TEX AS AT AM ARILLO PANE L A SEP TEM BER 5, 2003

____________

____________

___ BERNABE G. VALDEZ, APPELLANT

V. THE STAT E OF TEX AS, APPEL LEE

____________

____________

_________ FROM THE 137 T H DISTRIC T COU RT OF LUBB OCK COUN TY; NO. 2 002 -4 001 29; HONORABL E CECI L PURYEAR, JUDGE

____________

____________

_______ Before JOHN SON , C.J., and REA VIS and CA MP BELL , JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPI NI ON
Foll owing a plea of

not guil ty, a jur

y convicted appel lant B ernabe G . Vald ez of t he off ense of burgl ary

of a habi tati on wi th i ntent to commit theft, and the cour

t, fi ndi ng thefi ve enhancementparagr

aphs i nclud ed i n the i ndi ctment to betrue, sent enc ed him to 7 5 years

### 2

confinement. Presenti ng two points of er ror , appel la nt req uests we reverse hi s convicti on and remand the c ase for a new trial. By hi s first po int, appellant co ntend s the trial cou rterred in fai li ng to gr an t h is “reque st t o sup press evi denc e obtai ned i n vio la ti on of th e prope r scope of
an inv es tig at ive de te nt ion .” W ith his second poi nt appel la nt al le ges “thetria l co ur t e rre d in fai li ng to contempor

aneousl y pr

ovidea l imi ti ng i nstructi on to the j uryre gardi ng t he p ro per use of[h is] pr iorco nv ict ion s wh ich we re ad mit te d in to ev ide nc e. ” B as ed up on th e r at ion ale set out b el ow, we affi rm. On the eveni ng of

May30, 2002, the compl ai nant hear d a knock at hi s front

door, and, upon openi ng i t, obser ved appel la nt, who ex pl ai ned hi s car had broken down and a sked i f he
c ou ld have some water from t he o utsi de fau cet. The compl ai nant consented , di rected appel la ntto the hose, and returne d to hi s house. A fewmin utes l ater, appel la ntknocked o n the door a nd as ke d ifhe co uld obtai n more water fr om the hose. Someti me l ater, appel la nt knocked on the do or a t hi rd ti me and re quested to us e t he co mp lain an t’ s ph on e b ec au s e h is
carstil l woul d not sta rt. The compl ai nant retri eved a cordl ess phone from hi s house and handed i t t o ap pel l ant , wh o pu rp orted l ycal l ed a re l ati ve topi ckhi m up. Appel la nt made one
more phone cal l, then aske d i f he coul d have a cup to procure more water from thehose. The complai nant left

appell ant standing on the porch and walked to the ki tchen to retrie ve a cup. As he was removi ng the cup from the cabi net, th e compl ai nant hear d the screen door shut. He tu rn ed ar ou nd an d d isc ov er ed th at ap pe lla nt had di sappeared, al ong wi th the cordless phone and the complai nant’s wall et, which had been si tti ng on the coffee tabl e.

### 3

On June 6, 200 2, K irk Hawki ns, an officer

wit h the Lubb ock Poli ce Department , made cont a ctwit h appel la nt on an u nrel ated matter. When Hawkin s requested some form of id enti fi cati on from h im, appel la nt pre sented a bi rth cer ti fi cate. Fo r of fic er s af et y, Hawki ns then conducted a pat-d own se arch of appe l l antand di scovered t he co mpl ai nant ’s d ri ver ’s l i cense in appell ant’s back pocket. After runni ng the l icense t hrough the l aw enforcement databa se, Hawki ns l earned the compl ai nant had be en th e v ict im of a bu rg l arya we ek e ar l i er . Beca use appel la ntmatched the descripti on of the burgl ary suspect pr ovided by the complai nant, Hawki ns contacted th e compl ai nant and r equested he r

eview aphoto spread. After viewi ng the photo spread f

or “ ju st a coupl e of seconds,”the compl ai nant i denti fi ed appel la nt as the man who had been at his home the week before.
Attri al , appel la nt admi tted he acqui red wate r fr om the compl ai nant’s f aucetand used his phone to pl ace a cal l; however, h e deni ed removi ng the pho ne and wal le t from the
com plainant’s hou se. Rath er , hecl ai med h e cameacross the c omplainant ’s driver’s l i cense in a fri end’s motel r

oom. Recognizi ng the person depicte d on the l icense a s the i ndi vidua l who had hel ped hi m a few days b efore, appel la nt mai ntai ned he too k the l icense wi th the in tent t o return it to the com plainant. He ass erted, h owe ver, th at he c ould not re membe r whe re the compla in ant l ived, and the a ddress l iste d on t he l i cense was i n San Anto ni o. Thus,
acc ording to ap pellant, he ha d been unsu cc ess ful in returning the licens e to its ow ner.

### 4

W ith hi s fi rst poi nt of error , appel la nt chal le nges th e t ria l co ur t’ s de nia l ofhis moti on to supp ress the c omplainant ’s driver’s l icense, whi ch he contends was obtai ned i n vi ol ati on of theedi cts o f Terry

v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 8 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 8 89 (196 8). Appel la nt did not fi lea wri tten pretri al moti on to supp re ss evid ence. However, i n a hear in g outsi de the prese nce of the jury before the State b egan i ts case, the cour t enter tai ned the testi mony of Hawki ns regardi ng his i nvestigati ve detention of ap pe lla nt on June 6, 2002. Fol lowing the te st imo ny, appel la nt urg ed the cour t to suppress any testi mony o r evi dence rel at in g to t he
com plainant’s dri ver’s li cense. Appellant ar gued that H aw ki ns exceeded t he scope of th e i nvest i gat i ve detenti on, a Terrystop , whe n he rem ove d the d river’s license from ap pellant’s back pocket. As a resul t, appe l l antcont i nued , an ysubse quen t evi denc e, i ncl ud in g statements by appel la nt, shoul d be su pp re s s ed as fru itof the p oisono us tree . The trial cou rt deni ed hi s moti on to suppress the driver’s l icense, but granted it“a s to the mann er i n whi ch the dri ver’s l icense was obtained .” Appel l ant t hen requested, a nd th e tr i al cour t granted hi m, a runni ng obj ecti on to any l in e of questi oni ng rega rdi ng the driver’s l icense. Attrial, howeve r, when the State offered the compl ai nant’s driver’s l icense i nto evi dence, appel la nt announced, “W e have no objecti on, Your Honor.”The li cense was then admitted into evi dence.
Iti s wellsettl ed that when a pretri al moti on to suppress eviden ce i s overrul ed, the defendant

nee d no t sub sequ ent l yobj ect a t t ri al to the sa me evid en ce i n order to preser

ve error on a ppea l . Morague z v. State, 701 S.W .2d 902, 904 (Tex .Cr.App. 19 86 ). H ow ev er , if attri al the def

endant states he has “ no o bj ecti on”when theevi denc e i s offered, he wai ves

### 5

his ad mis s ibil i ty c om pla int . W elc h v . S ta te , 9 93 S .W .2 d 6 90 , 6 94 (T ex .A pp .– S an A nt on io 1999, no pet.); but

cf . Tay lo r v. State , 82 S.W.3d 134, 137 (Tex .App.–San Antoni o 2002, no pet.) (stati ng “no furt

her obj ecti ons” i mpli edl y r eferen ces the pretri al moti on to suppress and, thu s, does not wa ive error) . Here, i n s pi te of t he runn in g obj ecti ons he req uested and recei ved at the p re tria l h eari ng, appel la nt expr essly announced he had no obj ecti on to th e admi ssion of

the driver’s l icense whe n i t was offered by the State a ttri al . As a resul t, he ha s presented nothing f

or our review. Appell ant’s fi rst point of error is overruled. Byhi s second poi nt, appe ll ant cl ai ms the tr ia l court f ai le d to i nst ruc t th e jur y, simul taneous to the admi ssion of the prio rconvicti ons, on thel imi ted pur pose for which t he convicti ons were admi tted. W e di sagree. Outside the presence of the j ury , appel la nt obj ected to the ad mis sion of the p ri or convi ctio ns on the basi s of remoteness. Appel la nt requested , i n the al ternat ive, that t he j ury be pro vided wit h a contem poraneo us li mit in g in structi on when the convicti ons were admi tted. The court o verrul ed both ob je ctio ns. W hen the State attempte d to i mpeach appel la nt, i n the j ury ’s pre sence, wit h evi dence of hi s pri or convicti ons for five f

el oni es an d o ne mis de me an orth ef t, ap pe llan t a ga in o bje c te d t o t he ir admi ssion and, al ternat ivel y, requeste d a contemporane ous l imiti ng instruc tion. The court
overru le d the obj ecti on and anno unced i t woul d del iver that i nstructi on i n the cour t’s charge ins te ad . T he co urt th en to ld th e jur y:
W ith r egard to the request for a contemporaneous i nstructi on to th e j ury , the ju ry wil l be i nstructed in the Charge by the Cou rt that th ese matte rs are bei ng

### 6

used for t he purp ose of i mpeachmentonl y of the – and for

the determi nati on of the credi bil ity

of the wi tness at this ti me.

Th us , w hile th e c ou rt p ur po rte d t o o v er ru le app el l ant ’s o bj ecti on, i t, none the l ess, i nstructed the j ury on the limited purpos e for wh ich the jurycoul d con si der app el l ant ’s p ri or

convi cti ons. Thus, appell ant received al l t hat he requested, and cannot be heard to compla in on ap pe al.

Assuming, arguend

o , the t ri al court f

ai le d to providea contemporaneou s limit in g in structi on, we co nc lud e t ha t e rro r, ifany, did not aff ect a ppellant’s substant i al ri ghts beca use ithad no substant ia l or i nj uri ous effect or infl uence in determi ning the j ury’ s verdict. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); see also King v. State, 953 S.W .2d 266, 271 (Tex .Cr.App. 1 997). The pri or convictions were i ntroduced through appel lant, the last wi tness to testify on the l ast day of tria l. T he n, fo llow ing a s ho rt c on fe re nc e o ut s ide th e p re s en c e o f t he jury, th e t ria l cour t charged the j ury

on the l aw appl icabl e to thecase, i nclud in g the l imi ted pur pose for whi ch the jury coul d consid er appe ll ant’s prio r convi ctio ns. Given the short amo untof ti me that pa ssed from the i ntrodu ctio n of thepri or convi ctio ns to the tri al court’s readi ng of the i nstructions to the jury, we co nc lud e t he tria l co ur t’ s er ro r, ifany , di d not af fect a substant ia l ri ght. Le mmons v. State, 75S.W .3d 513, 525 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’ d). Appell ant’s second poi nt of error

i s overrul ed. According ly

the j udgment of

the tria l court i s affi rmed.

### 7 Do n H . R ea v is Just i ce Do not publ ish.