Case Name: Alonzo MONTES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1994-05-12
Citations: 876 S.W.2d 538
Docket Number: No. 08-93-00008-CR
Parties: Alonzo MONTES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARAJAS, C.J., and KOEHLER and LARSEN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 876
Pages: 538–542

Head Matter:
Alonzo MONTES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 08-93-00008-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso.
May 12, 1994.
David C. Guaderrama, El Paso County Public Defender, El Paso, for appellant.
Jaime E. Esparza, Dist. Atty., El Paso, for appellee.
Before BARAJAS, C.J., and KOEHLER and LARSEN, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION ON REHEARING
BARAJAS, Chief Justice.
We grant Appellant's motion for rehearing, withdraw our opinion and judgment of March 30,1994, and substitute the following opinion.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of possession of a controlled substance under 28 grams. Upon a finding of guilt, the court assessed punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of 10 years. In four points of error, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress the contraband that forms the basis for his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
ON ORIGINAL SUBMISSION
In his points of error, Appellant argues that the contraband was obtained as a result of a warrantless detention that: (1) did not present the required degree of exigency; (2) was based upon stale information; (3) lacked an overall indicia of reliability, and; (4) was based solely upon unsubstantiated suspicions of an informant of unknown reliability.
The State responds that Appellant has wholly failed to preserve the above points for appellate review because his defense counsel affirmatively stated at trial that there was "no objection" to the evidence complained of at the suppression hearing. The record reflects that at trial, the State first offered into evidence the suppression hearing transcript, to which defense counsel stated that she had no objection. Then the State offered into evidence a signed stipulation that the contraband seized from Appellant was heroin:
State: At this time the State would offer as State's exhibit number 2, which would be the stipulation that the substance seized and analyzed is heroin. We offer that into evidence at this time, Your Honor. I just need to get Ms. Voorhies' signature. Specifically, that this item analyzed by Fernando Pena was heroin. The State would offer at this time exhibit 2, the signed stipulation by the State's attorney and Defense attorney and her client.
Defense: We have no objection to that, Your Honor.
It is well settled that when a pretrial motion to suppress evidence is overruled, the defendant need not subsequently object at trial to the same evidence in order to preserve error on appeal. Livingston v. State, 739 S.W.2d 311, 334 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Gearing v. State, 685 S.W.2d 326, 329 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Bennett v. State, 831 S.W.2d 20-1 (TexApp.—El Paso 1992, no pet.). However, when the defendant affirmatively asserts during trial that he has "no objection" to the admission of the complained of evidence, he waives any error in the admission of the evidence despite the pretrial ruling. Livingston v. State, 739 S.W.2d at 334; Gearing v. State, 685 S.W.2d at 329; McGrew v. State, 523 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.Crim. App.1975); Bennett v. State, 831 S.W.2d at 21. As a consequence, we need not recount the evidence in the instant case because defense counsel's action waived any alleged error when the State, at trial, offered the stipulation that the substance seized and analyzed was heroin, and defense counsel affirmatively stated, "no objection." Accordingly, Appellant's Points of Error Nos. One through Four are overruled.