Opinion
Nos. 05-03-00706-CR, 05-03-00707-CR
Opinion issued December 22, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court, Grayson County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 049486 and 049696. Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, BRIDGES, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Vaughn Ray Gentry of possession of cocaine and evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and assessed punishment at confinement in the state jail and a $750 fine. In two issues, appellant complains the trial judge reversibly erred in admitting evidence of his prior drug conviction to establish probable cause for the search of his vehicle. We affirm. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which was heard prior to trial and denied by the trial judge. At trial, appellant expressed his intent to relitigate the probable cause finding, and the issue was ultimately submitted to the jury in the charge. In a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the State offered evidence that the arresting officer knew appellant had a previous drug conviction and considered that conviction in making his probable cause determination. Appellant objected that the evidence was not relevant specifically because the officer did not include the drug conviction as a factor in his incident or arrest report nor did he testify at the suppression hearing that he considered the drug convictions in determining probable cause to search. Appellant also objected that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. The trial judge overruled the objections, but immediately instructed jurors the evidence "was admitted only for the purpose of assisting you, if it does, in determining whether or not probable cause exists for any search of vehicle." In his first issue, appellant complains the evidence constituted inadmissible character conformity evidence in violation of Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b). Appellant did not make this objection at trial. Because his complaint on appeal does not comport with his trial objection, he has failed to preserve the error for appellate review. See Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 643 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (concluding relevancy objection at trial does not preserve rule 404 extraneous offense claim on appeal); Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524, 532 (Tex.Crim. App. 1993) (same). Moreover, even if appellant had raised a rule 404(b) objection below, appellant's brief cites only the rule and four cases, three of which are cited for one general legal proposition. He has made no attempt to analyze the law in this area or apply it to the facts of his case. Thus, the issue is inadequately briefed. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(h). In his second issue, appellant asserts that even if admissible, the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice in violation of Texas Rule of Evidence 403. Appellant's entire argument on the issue is as follows:
Regarding the second and intertwined issue which Appellant presents for review, Appellant strenuously urges the Court to agree with his conclusion that the evidence of his past drug convictions, if relevant at all to the probable cause issue, was highly prejudicial and that even the danger of unfair prejudice outweighs any probable value that the evidence had.Because appellant has made no specific arguments and has not cited any authority to support his position, we conclude this issue is inadequately briefed. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(h). We affirm the trial court's judgments.