Opinion issued November 1, 2007 

  In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-06-00770-CR

FLOYD JEROME THOMPSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 183rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1047488

MEMORANDUM OPINION

         A jury found appellant, Floyd Jerome Thompson, guilty of aggravated assault. The indictment also included two enhancement paragraphs alleging felony convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and delivery of a controlled substance. Having found true the enhancement allegations, the jury assessed appellant’s punishment at life in prison. We determine (1) whether appellant’s first point of error was preserved and (2) whether appellant’s second point of error was properly briefed. We affirm.

Facts

         In the afternoon and evening of June 1, 2005, there was on-going tension on Paul Quinn Street between two neighboring families, the Osborns and the Williamses. One family’s son, Carey Osborn, pushed the other family’s daughter, Jackie Williams, to the ground. When the fight was eventually broken up by Carey Osborn’s father, the two sides retreated to their respective lawns; however, the tension continued.

         At approximately 8:00 p.m., as crowds continued to gather on both sides of Paul Quinn street, appellant, Jackie Williams’s cousin, drove up to the Osborn home. Appellant parked his car, got out, and began to wave a gun in the air, saying, “Nobody mess with my kinfolk.” Appellant then fired shots in the direction of the Osborn house, hitting Gladys Osborn in the arm and chest. Multiple witnesses identified appellant as the shooter, including Gladys Osborn, who had known appellant for over 10 years.

                                                            Officer Mathews’s Testimony

         In his first point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence from a police officer when there was no issue of probable cause. Appellant specifically complains of police officer Mathews’s statement that “[e]verybody knew the name Floyd” and of his use of an offense report document that stated that appellant was the suspect.

         Failing to object generally waives error on appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Because appellant did not object on this ground in the trial court, he has not preserved his complaint for appellate review. Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

         We overrule appellant’s first point of error.

Overruled Objections

         In his second point of error, appellant contends that the trial court’s repeated overruling of his objections to inadmissible hearsay and other evidence rendered the trial unfair, depriving appellant of effective representation by his attorney. Appellant argues that the cumulative effect of the admission of improper evidence led to an unfair trial.

         Appellant sets out four instances in which the trial court overruled trial counsel’s objections, two of which concerned hearsay. Appellant sets out the rules of evidence regarding hearsay, cites a treatise stating the justification for the hearsay rule, and refers to a case that was reversed because of improper admission of hearsay. However, appellant’s brief fails to analyze why the trial court erred in overruling trial counsel’s objections in any of the four instances. In two of the instances, hearsay was not even a basis for objection. Under these circumstances, we are unable to address appellant’s contention due to his failure to brief the issue properly. See Foster v. State, 101 S.W.3d 490, 498 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Craven v. State, No. 01-06-00770-CR, 2003 WL 21544500, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). We overrule appellant’s second point of error.

Conclusion

         We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                      Tim Taft

                                                                      Justice

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Hanks, and Higley.

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