1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO . 09
- 14
- 00389
- CV

____________________ IN RE COMMITMENT OF ROBERT BECKER

__________________________________________________________________ On A ppeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No . 14
- 02
- 01837 CV

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION The State of Texas filed a petition to commit Robert Becker as a sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001

- .151 (West 2010 & Supp. 2014). A jury found that Becker is a sexually violent predator and the trial

court rendered a final judgment and an order of civil commitment. In two appellate issues, Becker challenges the admission of certain evidence

. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. In issue one, Becker contends that, in accordance with Texas Rules of
Evidence 403 and 705, the trial court should have excluded evidence on which the State’s expert , Dr. Lisa Clayton, relied when forming her opinion of whether2 Becker is a sexually violent predator. However , the record does not demonstrate that Becker objected to adm ission of this evidence on the basis of either Rule 403
or Rule 705. Accordingly, issue one is not preserved for appellate review. See Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(1); see also Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); In re Commitment of Day , 342 S.W.3d 193, 197 (Tex. App.

— Beaumo nt 2011, pet. denied). In issue two, Becker challenges the admission of evidence regar ding the Multidisciplinary Team (“MDT”) screening process. During Clayton’s testimony,
the State asked if an evaluation was performed before Clayton ’s evaluation. Becker objected on grounds of speculation, which the trial court overruled. Clayton then
testified that:
I have

- - from what I can review in the records, they’ve been

-- they’ ve gone through a sex offender treatment provider

-- or SOTP evaluation by, I think, like a master’ s
- level person. Becker objected, arguing that Clayton is not an expert regarding the MDT process. The trial court overruled the objection and Clayton proceeded to testify regarding various aspects of the MDT process for determining whether a person has a behavioral abnormality. In closing arguments, the State mentioned that another evaluation, in which it was determined that Becker has a behavioral abnormality, was performed before Clayton’s evaluation. According to Becker, Clayton’ s testimony and the State’s argument “unfairly ‘stacked the deck’” against him. T his3 argument was not presented to the trial court when Becker objected to Clayton’s testimony. Because the trial objection does not comport with the complaint presented on app eal, issue two is not preserved for our review. See In re Commitment of Weissinger , No . 09

- 12

- 00486

- CV , 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7819 , at *7 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont June 27, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“A n issue on appeal must comport with an objection made at trial; otherwise, the appellate complaint is waived. ”). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED

.

______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice
Submitted on February 18, 2015 Opinion Delivered March 5, 2015 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton , JJ.