Opinion
Nos. 05-05-00678-CR, 05-05-00679-CR
Opinion issued February 16, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 204th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F02-31777-Vq; F05-00345-KQ. Affirmed.
Before Justices MORRIS, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.
OPINION
Lucky John Luna appeals his aggravated sexual assault conviction in cause number 05-05-00678-CR and his sexual assault conviction in cause number 05-05-00679-CR. In a single issue in each case, appellant argues the State introduced impermissible opinion testimony that appellant would "perpetrate another child." We affirm the trial court's judgments. Appellant pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault of his step-daughter, E.M. At the punishment hearing, Child Protective Services investigator Mary Loper testified she had talked with E.M. The prosecutor asked Loper whether it would be in the best interest of E.M. if appellant was placed on probation. Loper began to respond based on "what we've noticed in the past statistically," and appellant's counsel objected on the grounds that Loper was not qualified as an expert to give that testimony. The trial court sustained the objection, stating that "if [Loper had] a personal opinion based on this case, I would like to hear it but based on statistics, this is not the time or place for it." The prosecutor then asked Loper her opinion, based on her interview with E.M., of whether it would be appropriate for appellant to receive probation. Loper responded, with no objection from appellant's counsel, that her opinion was that appellant "would more than likely perpetrate another child." Loper further testified that E.M. had been "groomed," and she had concerns that appellant would abuse other children if he was given probation. On appeal, appellant complains of the admission of Loper's testimony that he would "perpetrate another child." To preserve an issue for appellate review, a defendant must make a proper and timely objection and obtain a ruling on that objection. Tex.R.App.P. 33.1; see Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602, 618 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). An objection should be made as soon as the ground for objection becomes apparent. Lagrone, 942 S.W.2d at 618. If a defendant fails to object until after an objectionable question has been asked and answered, and he can show no legitimate reason to justify the delay, his objection is untimely and error is waived. Id. Because appellant failed to object to the complained-of testimony, we conclude he has not preserved anything for our review. See id. We overrule appellant's issue in each of the above-numbered causes. We affirm the trial court's judgments.