Opinion
No. 05-06-00718-CR
Opinion Issued April 5, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 23899-86.
Before Justices, WHITTINGTON, FRANCIS, and LANG.
OPINION
Mitchell Blaine Nall appeals his conviction for possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine. See Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(6), 481.115(b) (Vernon 2003 Supp. 2006). After the jury found him guilty, the trial judge assessed punishment at 180 days' confinement, probated for four years, a $3000 fine and $918.05 in restitution. In two issues, appellant challenges the admission of evidence at trial. We affirm the trial court's judgment. In his first issue, appellant asks "Whether any appellate de novo review is allowed without objection in the trial court when the error complained of on Appeal is constitutional?" Under this issue, appellant argues the trial judge erred in admitting the testimony of the arresting officer regarding the drugs and drug paraphernalia found on appellant the night of his arrest. Appellant contends the evidence was inadmissible because the officer's search of appellant was unconstitutional and we must therefore reverse his conviction. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence, challenging the officer's pat-down search which yielded a crack pipe and methamphetamine. The trial judge overruled appellant's motion to suppress. Although appellant complains of the admission of the arresting officer's testimony at trial, the record does not contain the reporter's record from the hearing on the motion to suppress. In fact, nothing in the appellate record indicates a record was made. Without a reporter's record of the evidence presented during the motion to suppress hearing, we presume the evidence supports the trial judge's ruling. See Martin v. State, 13 S.W.3d 133, 140 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2000, no pet.); see also Ortiz v. State, 144 S.W.3d 225, 230 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd) (repeal of former rules of appellate procedure does not absolve appellant of burden of presenting record to show error requiring reversal insofar as he is required to develop record to show nature and source of error and, in some cases, its prejudice to him). Because appellant has failed to show error in the denial of his motion to suppress, we cannot conclude the trial judge erred. We overrule his first issue. In his second issue, appellant contends the trial judge erred in "consider[ing] prior misdemeanor judgments of conviction" when assessing punishment. Appellant argues under this issue that the judgments contain "stipulations of evidence which do not reflect that the defendant was represented by counsel," making the judgments "presumptively void and improper for the trial court's consideration." Initially, we note that appellant failed to object to the introduction of these exhibits at trial. The failure to object during trial "forfeits complaints about the admissibility of evidence," even though the error concerns a constitutional right of the defendant. Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 889 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Furthermore, appellant concedes in his brief that "the [misdemeanor] judgments reflect Appellant was represented by counsel." In light of the above, we conclude appellant's second issue lacks merit. We overrule appellant's second issue. We affirm the trial court's judgment.