Opinion
No. 10-04-00082-CR
Memorandum opinion delivered and filed June 1, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Brazos County, Texas, Trial Court # 03-01082-Crm-CCL2. Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant appeals her conviction for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. See TEX. HEALTH SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121 (2003). We will affirm. In Appellant's first issue, she contends that the evidence that she possessed marijuana was factually insufficient. The evidence that Appellant possessed marijuana was as follows. Officers responding to a call smelled an "overwhelming" odor of burning marijuana coming from an apartment. When Appellant opened the apartment door, a "wave of gray marijuana smoke" billowed out. Officers could smell the odor of burnt marijuana on Appellant's person and breath from some distance away. Officers searched the apartment pursuant to consent by Appellant and the apartment renter. In the room that Appellant said was hers were two partially smoked marijuana cigars, one still warm from having been smoked, and a scale and plastic bags suitable for use in the distribution of marijuana. Appellant admitted that she had been smoking marijuana. Officers did not smell the odor of marijuana on the other persons present in the apartment. Considering all of the evidence in a neutral light, the jury was rationally justified in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant possessed marijuana. See Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484-85 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). The evidence is factually sufficient. Appellant's first issue is overruled. In Appellant's second issue, she contends that the trial court erred in reading testimony back to the jury. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.28 (Vernon 1981). On appeal, Appellant contends that the jury's "request was inadequate to show a disagreement that would allow testimony to be read." At trial, Appellant's only objection was, "I think it's nonresponsive to the question and I think it may give — give undue weight to the evidence." Appellant's claim on appeal does not comport with her objection at trial, thus she has preserved nothing for review. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a); Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1032 (2004); Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Appellant's second issue is overruled. Having overruled Appellant's issues, we affirm the judgment.