Opinion filed August 31, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-05-00171-CR

                                                    __________

                                        URIEL OROZCO, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                          On Appeal from the 91st District Court

                                                        Eastland County, Texas

                                                Trial Court Cause No. 04-20,342

                                                                   O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Uriel Orozco of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams.  The jury assessed punishment at ten years confinement and a $10,000 fine.  We affirm.

There is no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.  In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the State made an impermissible jury argument.  During the punishment phase of the trial, the State commented:

Do you remember on the video when he was talking or yacking in the back of the car, and he was talking about the different places he traveled, the different places that he would speed and he wouldn=t get caught there?  Does that suggest from the evidence a possible pattern of taking drugs elsewhere, having drugs elsewhere?  It certainly could from the evidence.

Appellant did not object to the State=s argument. 

Appellant argues on appeal that the State=s argument injected new and harmful facts and could not have been cured by an instruction to disregard.  Appellant also contends that he was denied his right to a fair trial by a jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 15 of the Texas Constitution.

A defendant may not complain on appeal about an erroneous jury argument or that an instruction to disregard could not have cured an erroneous jury argument unless he objected to the argument at trial and pursued his objection to an adverse ruling.  Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).  Therefore, appellant has waived his complaint on appeal. Moreover, most comments that fall outside the areas of permissible jury argument, such as comments upon matters outside the record, will be considered to be nonconsitutional error.  Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 692 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).   Any error in the State=s argument did not affect appellant=s substantial rights.  Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b).  Appellant=s sole issue on appeal is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

JIM R. WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE

August 31, 2006

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.