i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 23 4- CR John ny Mic ha e l NO BLES , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 112th J udicial District Court, Sutton C ounty , Texas

Trial Court No. 2142 Honora ble Pedro Gomez, J r., Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: April 14, 2010 AFF I RMED I n his sole issue on appea l, J ohnny Michae l Nobles asserts the t rial court err ed in admit ting
e vid e nc e of tw o pri or fe lony c on vic tio ns duri ng the g uil t/i nn oc e nc e ph a se of tr ia l. We ov e rr

ule his iss ue on a pp e a l and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. F ACT UAL AND P R OC EDU R A L B ACKG ROUND No ble s w a s in dic te d o n o ne c ount o f a g g ra vate d ro bb e ry a nd on e c ount o f a g g ra vate d a ssa ult wi th a de a dly we a po n. Th e c ha

rg e s aro se ou t of

a n in c ide nt t

hat oc c ur re d a ft e r N ob le s and

his04
- 09
- 00 23 4- CR

1 ... Nobles’s wr itten motion i n limine is l imited to Rules 401, 404(b), a nd 403; however , during the hea

ring on the motion in li mine, Nobles’s c ounsel argued Rule 609 as a n additional basis for g ranting the motion as to prior convictions. T EX . R. E V ID . 401, 403, 404(b), 609.

- 2- c omp a nio n r a n o ut o f g a s and we re pic ke d u

p a lon g the ro a ds ide by

the c omp la ina

nt wh o a g re e d to drive them to a gas station. When the complaina nt refuse d to drive them bac k to their van, Noble s held a box cutter to the complainant’s throat and told him he wanted the complaina nt’s pickup truck. Th e c omp la ina

nt w a s a ble to e sc a

pe a nd c a ll the po lic e who arres ted Nobl e s. Af te r a jur y tr ia l, Nobles wa s con v i ct ed of both c ounts and the cour t assessed the punishment re commended by the jur y of fi ft y (5 0) y e a rs ’ i mpr iso nme nt on the a g g ra vate d r ob be ry

c ount a nd tw e nty (2 0) y e a rs ’ imprisonment on the ag g ravated assault with a de adly wea pon count, wit h the sentenc es to be ser ved
concur rently . Nobles timely

appea led. A N A L Y SIS Nobles contends the trial court err ed in a dmitti ng evidenc e of two pr ior convictions, a thef t conviction in 1985 and a burg lary of a habitation conviction i n 1987. The State re sponds that Nobles opened the door and f

ailed to pre serve any

err or in the admiss ion of the prior c onvictions. Bef ore trial beg an, Nobles pr esente d his moti on in limi ne to the cour t, objecting to any

ref ere nce to the 1985 and 1987 prior c onvictions under Rule 609 1 of the Texas Rules of Evidenc e. Eve n though N obles did not specify

that he wa s making a re moteness objection, it is cl ea r fr o m the context of the discussion that the parties a nd the court understood that Nobles’s re fer ence to Rule 609 was base d
on the fa ct that two of his prior c onvictions were more than te n y ear s old. See T EX . R. E V ID . 609(b) (p re c lud ing a dmi ssi on of a c on vic tio n if mor e tha n ten y e a rs ha s ela

ps e d sinc e the c on vic tio n d a te
o r r el ea s e d at e, u n l es s t h e c o u rt d et er m i n es t h e p ro b at i v e v al u e s u b s t an t i al l y

o u t we i gh s i t s prejudicia l eff ect) . The trial c ourt g rante d Nobles’s motion in lim ine, and took the Rul e 609 objec tion under04
- 09
- 00 23 4- CR

- 3- advisement, stating , “[l] et’s see how i t’s all g oing to pa n out.” Ther efor e, bec ause N obles did not obtain an adver se ruling on his Rule 609 remotene ss obje ction, the issue of re moteness of the pr ior
co n v i ct i ons was not pre serve d for a ppellate r eview at that time. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 3 3
. 1( a ) ( to prese rve e rror

for appellate review, the complaining party must obtain a ruling on his objec tion, or
o b j ec tt o co u rt ’s fa i l u re t o ru l e)
. M o re o v er , a gra n t o f a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e i s o n l y

a p re l i m i n ary

ru l i n g, and does not pre serve err or in the admission of evidenc e; a separ ate trial objection must be made at the time the evidence is off ere d for a dmission. Ge ud e r v . S tat e , 1 15 S.W. 3d

11 , 1 4- 15 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2003). Her e, Nobles’s motion wa s a true motion in lim ine, re questing only that the State not ref er to the e vidence until a hear ing w as held to dete rmine its admissibil ity
. During trial, the State did not attem pt to introduce evide nce of Nobles’s prior

convictions duri ng its c a se -i n- c hi ef. Nob les test if ie d to his ve rs ion

of e ve nts duri ng the de fe ns e c a se . Wh ile de sc ri bin g his re a c tio n w he n th e c omp la ina nt c a lle d the po lic e , No ble s state d, “ I have be e n in tr ou ble wi th t he law b e fo re , a

nd Idid n’ t w a nt t o h a ve a ny

thi ng to d o w itha ny

of fi c e rs o r any

thi ng .” Hi s counsel the n as k ed s ev er al qu es t i o n s wh i ch el i ci t ed re s p o n s es fr o m No b l es d et ai l i n g his past criminal history and the fact that he was c urre ntly on parole . Specifica lly , Nobles testified that he was
arr ested 16 y ear s ag o for stea ling a vehicle, rec eived a n 18-y ear sentenc e for

esca ping f rom a ha lfwa y ho us e in 1 98 8 w hil e he wa s o n p a ro le fo r a pr ior c on vic tio n, a nd

se rv e d a bo ut n ine y e a rs in prison for va

rious parole violations during the period from 1993 to 2008. During cross-e x amination by the State, Nobles testified, without objection, t hat he knew he ha d an outstanding parole violation
wa rr a nt b a se d o n fou

r mon ths of fa ili ng to re po rt a t the tim e of the ins tant of fe ns e s. Th e Sta te a lso questioned Nobles a

bout his prior convictions for burg lary of a ha bitation, escape from a ha lf-wa y hous e , a n d u n a

u th o r iz e d u s e o f a mo to r v e h ic le
. N o o b je c ti o n w a s ma d e u n d e r Ru le 609 or04
- 09
- 00 23 4- CR

- 4- otherwise. B eca

use No b l es ’s m o t i on in limi ne did not prese rve a ny err or in the admission of the evidenc e conc erning the prior co n v i ct i ons, and Nobles did not ra ise a trial objec tion, and in fac t opened the door to the evide nce, h e fa i l ed t o p rese rve a ny err or. Geude r , 115 S.W .3d at 14-15; Ma rti ne z v . S tat e , 22 S.W .3d 504, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial objec tion is required to pre serve
e rr or ); T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a). Ac cording ly , we ove rrule N obles’s sole issue on appe al, and a ffirm the trial cour

t’s judgme nt.
Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice

DO NO T PU B L I SH