Opinion
No. 14-05-00864-CR
Opinion filed November 2, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1007515. Affirmed.
Panel consists of Justices FOWLER, EDELMAN, and FROST.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kenneth Ray Sowell appeals a conviction for aggravated robbery on the grounds that: (1) the trial court erred by submitting a definition of reasonable doubt to the jury venire panel in violation of Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); (2) the live identification line-up of appellant was unduly suggestive because the other participants in the line-up were physically dissimilar; and (3) the trial court erred by allowing testimony during the guilt phase that suggested extraneous offenses. However, because appellant failed to object to the trial court's alleged definition of reasonable doubt, the alleged line-up as being impermissibly suggestive, or any of the testimony that he now complains suggested extraneous offenses, his complaints are not preserved for our review. Accordingly, appellant's three issues are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
A jury convicted appellant of aggravated robbery, found one enhancement paragraph true, and imposed a sentence of 70 years' confinement.
See Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267, 273 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (holding that defendant failed to preserve error by not renewing his objection when the trial court rephrased its definition of reasonable doubt during voir dire).
Perry v. State, 703 S.W.2d 668, 670-71 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (finding waiver because defendant failed to object or complain about the out-of-court identification procedure at trial).