IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00175-CR

LARRY GENE GEORGE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 18th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. F42972

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Larry Gene George appeals from a jury verdict sentencing him to prison for forty 

years for the offense of possession of a controlled substance of more than four but less 

than 200 grams with the intent to deliver. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 482.112 

(Vernon Supp. 2010). George pled guilty to the charged offense and to an enhancement 

paragraph, but elected to have a jury to assess punishment. George complains that the 

trial court abused its discretion in overruling his objection to testimony regarding how 

many uses 5.3 pounds of methamphetamine would produce and other testimony 

regarding “the amount of dope, selling drugs, drug addiction, how people hooked on 
George v. State Page 2

methamphetamine can’t hold down a job as well as several people pooling their money 

to purchase drugs.”

Objections to Testimony

The State questioned a detective with a drug task force about a statement made 

by George that when he was arrested for the prior offense that was the basis of the 

enhancement paragraph, he was in possession of 27,000 tablets of “pseudofed” (sic). 

The detective testified that 27,000 tablets would manufacture 5.3 pounds of 

methamphetamine. The detective then explained the difference between types of 

Sudafed and how they create different amounts of product, as well as differing cooking 

methods yielding different amounts. According to the detective, using the 27,000 

tablets with what the detective testified was the standard cook method at the time of the 

offense, would have yielded 83.7 ounces or 5.3 pounds of methamphetamine. This very 

large amount would require multiple cooks or a very well-equipped methamphetamine 

lab. When asked how many uses 5.3 pounds would break down into, George objected 

on the basis of speculation. On appeal, he complains that the evidence was irrelevant. 

In order to preserve an error for purposes of appeal, the issue complained of in the 

appeal must have been made to the trial court. George did not object to relevance. His 

objection is not properly preserved and is waived. Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (a party’s “point of error on appeal must comport with the 

objection made at trial”).

George complains of the trial court overruling an objection to the lack of 

relevance of a line of questioning by the State regarding the inability of drug dealers to 
George v. State Page 3

know where the drugs they sell end up. The detective from the task force testified that 

a person addicted to methamphetamine generally smokes it every day, generally cannot 

hold down a job for very long, which results in stealing. Additionally, people put their 

money together to purchase a gram of methamphetamine to smoke together. George 

objected in the middle of the answer when the detective was describing people pooling 

their money together, which the trial court overruled without a response from the State.

In his brief to this Court, George cites to one case by the Court of Criminal 

Appeals, but gives no discussion of how that case applies to his objection lodged to the 

trial court. He does not mention whether his complaint relates to the rules of evidence 

or the code of criminal procedure. As such, this issue is inadequately briefed, and 

therefore is waived. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). See also Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 23 

n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).1 Issue one is overruled.

Conclusion

 Having overruled George’s sole issue to this Court, we affirm the judgment of 

the trial court.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

 

1 Even if this issue had been adequately briefed as to relevance, the error, if any, would be harmless. 

George was arrested with a significant amount of drugs in his possession. Scales and baggies were also 

located, which indicates distribution of drugs. George admitted that he had possessed a massive quantity 

of a base ingredient necessary to cook methamphetamine when he was convicted for the same offense as 

the instant case. This offense served as the basis for the enhancement paragraph to which George pled 

“true.” The response to this question regarding the habits of methamphetamine addicts, without more, 

would be harmless. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b).
George v. State Page 4

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed February 16, 2011

Do not publish

[CRPM]