Clarence Allen Coats v. State

Coats v. SOT NUMBER 13-01-232-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG CLARENCE ALLEN COATS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 24th District Court of DeWitt County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Castillo Opinion by Justice Hinojosa A jury found appellant, Clarence Allen Coats, guilty of the offense of possession of less than one gram of cocaine and assessed his punishment at two years confinement in a state jail. By a single point of error, appellant contends that since the arresting officer had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain him for investigative purposes, the search revealing the cocaine was invalid, and State Exhibits 2 and 3 (a plastic baggie and the cocaine) should have been suppressed. We affirm. As this is a memorandum opinion not designated for publication and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. During the State's case-in-chief, State Exhibits 2 and 3 were admitted into evidence with no objection from appellant. After the State rested, appellant attempted to present a motion to suppress State Exhibits 2 and 3. A motion to suppress is nothing more than a specialized objection to the admissibility of evidence. Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 952 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Therefore, it must meet the requirements of an objection. Mayfield v. State, 800 S.W.2d 932, 935 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1990, no pet.). An objection must be timely made with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A defendant must object at trial when the complained of evidence is first elicited. See Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Jackson v. State, 888 S.W.2d 912, 914 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.). Because he did not object to State Exhibits 2 and 3 at the time they were admitted into evidence, we hold appellant waived the issue he now complains of on appeal. Accordingly, nothing is preserved for our review. We overrule appellant's sole point of error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA Justice Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3. Opinion delivered and filed this the 28th day of March, 2002.