IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-99-327-CR

     REGINA MARIE CAMPBELL,

                                                                         Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                         Appellee

From the 18th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court # F33584

O P I N I O N

      Regina Marie Campbell pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance. Punishment was set by the jury at 20 years in prison for the delivery charge and 10 years in prison for the possession charge. The 10 year sentence was suspended and Campbell was placed on community supervision. She appeals her sentences and requests a new punishment hearing. We affirm.

      In her first issue, Campbell complains about the admission of testimony and exhibits relating to Campbell’s arrest on another offense in 1993. During direct examination at punishment, Campbell testified about her arrest in 1993 where a large amount of marijuana was found in her house. Campbell claimed the marijuana was her husband’s. On rebuttal, the State called Mark Howard, a deputy with the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office, to testify about Campbell’s 1993 arrest and to sponsor photographs of the drugs and drug paraphernalia found in her home. Campbell contends on appeal that the testimony and photographs were inadmissible as extraneous offense evidence. However, Campbell did not object to the admission of this evidence. Therefore, the complaint has not been preserved for our review. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Campbell’s first issue is overruled.

      In her second issue, Campbell contends, “The trial court committed error in not initiating action to protect the appellant from obvious ineffective assistance of counsel.” Campbell has not cited us to any case, nor have we found any, that requires the trial court to police trial counsel if it perceives ineffectiveness in counsel’s representation. We decline to implement such a requirement. Her second issue is overruled.

      Having overruled each of Campbell’s issues, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                             TOM GRAY

                                                             Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Gray

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed July 18, 2001

Do not publish