Opinion
No. 05-09-00646-CR
Opinion Filed June 23, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F08-58367-T.
Before Justices RICHTER, LANG-MIERS, and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Travis Tyrone Rabon entered an open plea of guilty before the court to the offense of aggravated robbery, and the trial court set punishment at twenty-five years in prison. In one issue, he argues the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his objection to evidence regarding a robbery that occurred a few days before the robbery at issue in the present case. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Discussion
In his only issue, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his objections to the complainant's testimony regarding a robbery that occurred a few days before the robbery at issue in the present case. Standard of Review The admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622, 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). So long as the trial court's ruling lies within the zone of reasonable disagreement, the appellate court should affirm. Id. Background During cross-examination, the State questioned appellant about another robbery that occurred at the same location as the instant robbery approximately ten days before the instant robbery, and appellant denied having anything to do with that robbery. The State recalled the complainant as a rebuttal witness and questioned him about the previous robbery. At the beginning of the State's examination, the record reads in part as follows:[PROSECUTOR]: Mr. Delaughter, your convenience store had been robbed previous to that a few days before; is that correct?
[COMPLAINANT]: That's correct.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I object to relevance.
THE COURT: Let me hear the testimony and I'll determine whether it's relevant and whether to consider that.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I would like to have a running objection to that testimony until the Court makes a ruling on that.
THE COURT: All right.After listening to the complainant's testimony regarding the previous robbery and questioning him briefly, the trial court made its ruling. The relevant portion of the record reads as follows:
THE COURT:. . . . I'm not going to consider the previous robbery but I did want to clarify whether it was possible that the money could be seen from the door.
THE WITNESS [COMPLAINANT]: No.
THE COURT: That is important to me and I am considering that the fact — I have no evidence that I can consider admissible that would tie him [appellant] to the previous robbery and I'm not considering that in assessing punishment. I want that clear on the record.Analysis Appellant argues the trial court should have sustained his running objection to the evidence of the previous robbery at the complainant's store. Yet the record indicates the trial court did that. By stating that the testimony was inadmissible, the trial court effectively sustained appellant's objection to the relevance of the testimony. Moreover, the trial court stated that it was not going to consider the testimony. Since the trial court not only sustained appellant's objection but also indicated that it would not consider the disputed evidence, appellant received the ruling he sought, and has, therefore, preserved nothing for review. Where a party receives all the relief requested, nothing is preserved for review. Loar v. State, 627 S.W.2d 399, 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). We also note that trial court did not abuse its discretion by hearing the testimony before ruling on its admissibility. As in a hearing on a motion to suppress or a hearing held outside the presence of the jury, the trial court must first hear disputed testimony before determining its admissibility. We find no support for appellant's suggestion that the trial court could have ruled on the evidence's admissibility before knowing what that evidence was. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that the trial court disregarded its ruling. Appellant's issue is overruled. We affirm the trial court's judgment.