Opinion
No. 05-04-01432-CR
Opinion Filed June 16, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court, No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F03-50687-HI. Affirm.
Before Justices O'NEILL, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert Everitt Taylor pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, and the jury assessed punishment at thirty years in prison. In a single issue, appellant complains the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that he committed theft as a juvenile. We affirm. At trial, appellant testified he was previously convicted as an adult of two misdemeanors: unlawfully carrying a weapon and failure to identify (fugitive). Under questioning by his lawyer, appellant testified he had made "bad choices" and "it started" when he was seventeen years old and ended at nineteen, when this offense occurred. The State then asked appellant if he represented to the jury that his "bad choices" began when he was seventeen, and appellant replied, "Yes." The State then offered a juvenile theft offense for which appellant received deferred probation at the age of fifteen, arguing appellant "opened the door" to the evidence by leaving an incorrect impression that his trouble with law enforcement began at seventeen. The trial court allowed the evidence over appellant's objection. In his sole issue, appellant argues he did not open the door to this evidence. To preserve error in admitting evidence, a party must properly object and get a ruling each time the inadmissible evidence is offered or obtain a running objection. See Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). Any error in admitting evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection. Id.; Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). Here, evidence of appellant's juvenile crime came in elsewhere without objection. Specifically, appellant's father testified that appellant had "juvenile trouble" on a theft case at age fifteen or sixteen. Under these circumstances, there is no reversible error. We resolve his only issue against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.