No. 13-02-434-CR
Memorandum Opinion Delivered and Filed July 22, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On appeal from the 156th District Court of Live Oak County, Texas.
Before Justices HINOJOSA, YAñEZ, and GARZA.
Opinion by Justice YAñEZ.
In a single issue, appellant, Santiago Alvarez, challenges the trial court's denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress. 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 except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex.R.App.P. 47.4. The record contains the trial court's certification that the case is not a plea-bargain case and the defendant has the right to appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(a)(2).
Background
Appellant's vehicle was stopped by a Department of Public Safety (DPS) officer for alleged traffic violations. After obtaining appellant's consent to search the vehicle, drugs were found behind the dashboard. Appellant was indicted for possession of more than 400 grams of cocaine. After the trial court denied his pre-trial motion to suppress, appellant filed an "open" plea of nolo contendere to the offense charged. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Standard of Review
The proper standard of review for an appeal stemming from a suppression ruling is a bifurcated review, giving almost complete deference to the fact findings of the trial court, but reviewing de novo the court's application of the law to those facts. Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Where, as here, there are no findings of fact filed by the trial court, we "review the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling." Id. Analysis
By a single issue, appellant contends: (1) the traffic stop was unlawful; and (2) the search and seizure of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. Regarding his first contention, appellant failed to preserve for review any challenge to the legality of the stop. He did not object to the legality of the stop either in his motion to suppress or at the hearing on the motion. In his motion to suppress, appellant complained only on the ground that he was "detained for such an extended time that the detention transformed a permissible traffic stop into a violation of the defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment." "A motion to suppress evidence is nothing more than a specialized objection to the admissibility of evidence." Morrison v. State, 71 S.W.3d 821, 826 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (citing Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 952 n. 10 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981)). "Therefore, it must meet the requirements of an objection." Id. Objections must be timely and specific in order to preserve error for appellate review. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). Also, the complaining party must have obtained an adverse ruling from the trial court. See id. at 33.1(a)(2) (A-B). Finally, the objection made at trial must correspond with the issue on appeal. Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 431 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). Appellant's complaint on appeal as to the legality of the traffic stop meets none of these criteria. The complaint was neither timely nor specific, in that appellant never objected to the stop itself in the motion to suppress or at the hearing. No adverse ruling was received on this ground, as it was not before the trial court. Moreover, this complaint (illegality of the stop) does not correspond with the objection made in the motion to suppress (extended detention). An objection asserted for the first time on appeal is tantamount to making no objection at trial. Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 277-80 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). Absent a proper objection at trial, a litigant cannot assert the complaint on appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a). Thus, we cannot consider appellant's first contention under his sole issue because it was not preserved for our review. As for appellant's second contention, we conclude it is inadequately briefed. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.1; see also McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d 47, 49 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (where appellant fails to present legal authority and fails to apply the law to the facts, issue is inadequately briefed and presents nothing for review). "In making such an argument, appellant must ground his contention in analogous case law or provide the court with the relevant jurisprudential framework for evaluating his claim." Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Appellant cites neither case law nor the record for support of his argument that the search and seizure of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. In failing to provide any relevant authority suggesting how the officer's actions violated any of appellant's constitutional rights, we hold the issue to be inadequately briefed, and therefore, we do not address it. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.1. We have considered both of appellant's contentions within his sole issue, and they are both overruled. Thus, appellant's sole issue is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.