NO. 07-07-0330-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

NOVEMBER 25, 2008

______________________________

GEORGE KIRBY,

                                                                                                 Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                                 Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 364^TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2006-411,937; HON. BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

          George Kirby was convicted by a jury of manufacturing a controlled substance. He seeks reversal by contending that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a booking photograph which depicted his appearance on the day of his arrest. Allegedly the picture was both irrelevant and unduly inflammatory. We affirm the judgment.

          The photograph was mentioned again by the State. However, only the first reference drew objections from appellant. The other did not. Moreover, appellant did not ask for a running or continuous objection from the trial court when his first complaints were overruled. By not asking for a running objection and by withholding further complaint when the State alluded to the photograph for a second time during the testimony of a different officer, appellant did not preserve the purported error now before us. Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 859-60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

          Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s issues and affirm the judgment.

                                                                           Per Curiam

Do not publish.

s of litigants."

ANALYSIS

Granting appellant's motion would expand the time limits established by the TRAP for appellant's appeals process. As Rule 2 has been interpreted in Oldham and Riewe, we cannot suspend the operation of Rule 21.8 and extend the time for the trial court to rule on appellant's amended motion for new trial under the circumstances presented by appellant. Thus, assuming appellant, the State, and the trial judge agreed on the proposal as described in appellant's motion, we still must, and therefore do, deny appellant's motion.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

1. Further references to the rules of appellate procedure will be by reference to "Rule" or "TRAP."