Court Opinion

ID: 9653568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:49:03.048006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:00.047674
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge.
This is a conviction for burglary, with punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.
*360The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction presents the sole question for review.
Appellant’s guilt is established by his written confession, together with proof showing his possession recently thereafter of certain property taken in the burglary. The property mentioned was found as a result of a search of appellant’s room.
Appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, claiming the alleged stolen property was found in an illegal search of his private residence.
If the search was illegal, appellant should have urged an objection to the testimony at the time it was offered in evidence. This he did not do, and in failing to do so, waived any objection thereto. Moreover, proof of appellant’s possession of the alleged stolen property was established by his confession, to the introduction of which no objection was made. Graham v. State, 126 Tex. Cr. R. 531, 69 S. W. 2d 73; Montgomery v. State 115 Tex. Cr. R. 469, 31 S. W. 2d 440.
The same facts which appellant claimed were obtained as a result of an illegal search were before the jury from another source, without objection, which rendered any objection to the alleged illegal search untenable. Countee v. State, 119 Tex. Cr. R. 181, 44 S. W. 2d 994.
No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the court.