Opinion
No. 04-04-00005-CV
Delivered and Filed: April 6, 2005.
Appeal from the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2003-Juv-02302, Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding.
Affirmed.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Sarah B. DUNCAN, Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A.D. appeals the judgment modifying his disposition and committing him to the Texas Youth Commission. In his sole point of error, A.D. argues the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a probation officer "to testify as to the results of a drug test without being qualified as an expert witness." However, A.D.'s only objection to the testimony at trial was that "[i]t is hearsay. He is denied right of confrontation. I would like to take the witness on voir dire." Because the objection at trial does not comport with the complaint on appeal, the complaint is not preserved for review. See Heidelberg v. State, 144 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) ("[I]t is well settled that the legal basis of a complaint raised on appeal cannot vary from that raised at trial."); Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1)(A) (to preserve complaint for appellate review, party must make a "timely . . . objection . . . that states the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context."). The trial court's judgment is affirmed.