Court Opinion

ID: 5033006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 05:40:47.455289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:07:04.863920
License: Public Domain

OPINION
The offense is burglary with two prior non-capital felony convictions alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life. *Page 642 
Appellant's attorney on appeal asserts as ground of error #1 that the trial court erred in admitting fingerprint comparison testimony. No objection was interposed at the time the identification officer testified, so nothing is presented for review. Barfield v. State, 43 S.W.2d 106; McCue v. State,75 Tex.Crim. 137, 170 S.W. 280; Bonds v. State, 71 Tex.Crim. R.,160 S.W. 100; and Coleman v. State, 68 Tex.Crim. R.,150 S.W. 1177. See also Robles v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 411 S.W.2d 729.
He next contends that the court erred in his charge. No objections were presented to the trial court, and therefore, likewise, nothing is presented for review.
The judgment is affirmed.