Opinion
No. 04-03-00839-CR
Delivered and Filed: April 6, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 824680, Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Sitting: Catherine STONE, Justice, Sarah B. DUNCAN, Justice, Karen ANGELINI, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Steve Sanchez appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence of the stop that resulted in his arrest for driving while intoxicated. However, when Sanchez's attorney raised his motion to suppress before trial began, the trial court elected to carry the motion with the case, instructing Sanchez's attorney "to just raise that at the time that issue comes up." Despite this instruction, Sanchez's attorney did not object when the video of the stop and the receipts for drinks that Sanchez had purchased were tendered into evidence; indeed, Sanchez's attorney stated he had "[n]o objection" to their admission. He did not again raise his motion to suppress until half-way through his cross-examination of the arresting officer; and, even then, the colloquy between him and the trial judge is not reported. Sanchez thus waived his complaint. See and compare Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79, 81, 84-85 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (holding that appellant preserved error in trial court's denial of motion to suppress "by re-urging his motion to suppress at the introduction of the physical evidence seized from the van," "because the judge had already told appellant that he would not rule on the motion until the jury had heard the evidence," so that appellant "was reasonable to interpret those comments as an instruction to seek a ruling at the conclusion of the State's presentation of evidence, and not sooner"; but recognizing the "general rule would require appellant to object and obtain a ruling at the earliest opportunity"). The trial court's judgment is therefore affirmed.