Glenn Gerald Jeane A/K/A Glenn Gerald Jeane II v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 28, 2012
• Docket: 09-11-00690-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-11-00690-CR ____________________

GLENN GERALD JEANE A/K/A GLENN GERALD JEANE II, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 410th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10-04-03377 CR ________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Glenn Gerald Jeane guilty of possession with intent to

deliver/manufacture a controlled substance and of unlawful possession of a firearm by a

felon. Jeane received a life sentence for the drug offense and twenty years for possessing

the firearm. Jeane argues that it was fundamental error for the trial court to admit

evidence taken in violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable

searches and seizures.

Jeane asserts that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, because the trial

court admitted evidence obtained from a Terry frisk and a vehicle search after a traffic

1 stop. He argues the evidence was the fruit of an illegal search and should have been

excluded. Jeane failed to draw the trial court’s attention to his constitutional complaints

by either filing a motion to suppress or objecting during trial. In order to preserve error, a

timely and sufficiently specific request, objection, or motion must be made to the trial

court. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Tucker v. State, 990 S.W.2d 261, 262 (Tex. Crim. App.

1999). Failure to preserve error at trial waives the later assertion of the error on appeal.

See Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Generally, even

constitutional errors are waived if the appellant fails to object. See Tex. R. App. P.

33.1(a); Aldrich v. State, 104 S.W.3d 890, 894-95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Bishop v.

State, 308 S.W.3d 14, 18 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. ref’d). Jeane argues that

although he did not object, this Court should extend the “fundamental error” exception to

the preservation requirement to those cases where evidence was “procured through a

violation of the [c]onstitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.” He

cites no authority for his argument. Issue one is overruled. The trial court’s judgment is

affirmed.

________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on November 7, 2012 Opinion Delivered November 28, 2012 Do Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.