C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

AA RO N WI L L I AM S, Ap pe lla nt, V. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 10 -0 00 56 -C R

Appea l from the 168th J udicial District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 20080D06123)

O P I N I O N Aar on Wil liams was convicte d of two counts of a g g ravated robbe ry and thre e counts of burg lary of a ha bitation. The trial cour

t sentence d Appellant to 12 y ear s’ imprisonment for the
ro bb e ry c onvic tio ns and

12 y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt f or the burg lary

c onvic tio ns . T he se nte nc e s w ill
run conc urre ntly . On appe al, Appellant r aises a sing le issue cha lleng ing the trial court’ s denial of his pr e tr ia l mo tio n to su

pp re ss. Appellant wa s indicted for two c ounts of ag g ravated robbe ry and thre e counts of bur g lary of ha bit atio n. Ap pe lla

nt f ile d a mot ion to s up pr e ss. Spe c if

ic a lly , App e lla

nt a rgue d th at th e ph oto
arr ay throug h which the victim of the c harg ed off enses, Mrs. Emma O livas-Vellan, ide ntified him as the perpe trator wa s illega lly sug g estive. The tr ial court de nied Appellant’ s motion. DuringMrs. Olivas-Ve llan’s trial testimony , she ag ain identified Appe llant as who burg lari zed

he r h ome and

atta c ke d h e r a

nd he r h us ba nd . T he jur

y c onvic te d App e lla

nt o f a ll counts. Appellant e lected to be sentenc ed by the cour t. Prior to the punishment phase, the-2-

parties r eac hed a se ntencingag ree ment, which provide d that Appellant would ser ve twelve y ear s for e ach of

fense , sentenc es to run conc urre ntly . The trial c ourt ac cepte d the agree ment and
s e n t e n c e d Ap p e l l an ta c c o r d i n g l y. In his sole issue presente d for this Court’s revie w, Appellant c ontends that the trial cour t abused its discre tion by

denying his motion to suppress the evide nce of Mrs. Olivas-Ve llan’s pretria l identification, bec ause the photo arra y was illeg ally

sug g estive. Althoug h Appellant’s
argume nt f

oc us e s e xclu siv e ly

on the c ourt ’s su

pp re ssi on ru lin g , a s a

pr e lim ina

ry matte r, we mus t
a dd re ss whe the r t

he e rr or c omp la ine d o f i s p re se rv e d f or our r e vie w. Te xas c ourt s st ri ng e ntl y
a pp ly the c on te mpo ra

ne ou s o bje c tio n r

ule in t he c on te xt of

su g g e sti ve ide nti fi c atio n p ro c e dure s. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 33 .1 (a ); Pe rry v . S tate , 7 03 S.W. 2d

66 8, 67 0 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ). Ab se nt a timely objection to the in-cour

t identification, or testimony based on a

n alleg edly

sug g estive identification proc edure , no err or is prese rved. Pe rry , 7 03 S.W. 3d at 67 1. In o the r w or ds , despite the de nial of Appe llant’s motion to s uppress the inve stigative identification, Appe llant was still required to objec t to the witness’s in-court identific ation to preser ve the a lleg ed er

ror. Pe rry , 703 S.W .2d at 670. Fa ilure to do so constitutes a proc edura l defa ult, and waives the complaint for a

ppellate r eview. Se e W

all ac e v . S tate , 75 S.W .3d 576, 584 (Tex.App.--Te x arka na 2002, pet. g rante d), aff’d on other grounds , 106 S.W .3d 103 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). Th e re is n o in dic atio n f

ro m th e re c or d o f M rs . O liv a s- Ve lla n’ s tr ia l te sti mony

that Appellant objec ted to her in-c ourt identification. The ref ore, A ppellant’s ar g ument reg ardingthe trial court’ s ruling on his motion to suppress has bee n waived. See W allace , 75 S.W .3d at 584. I ssue One is ther efor e over ruled a s waived. Ha vin gov e rr

ule d App e lla

nt’ s so le iss ue , w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.-3-

J une 15, 2011 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)