Derrick Demond Cooks v. State, 12-15-00059-CR

Derrick Demond Cooks was indicted for possession of phencyclidine (PCP) in an amount less than one gram; he pleaded not guilty and was convicted by a jury.
The jury assessed punishment at two years’ confinement and a $6,500 fine; Cooks appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.
Cooks’s written motion to suppress alleged constitutional violations (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendments and relevant Texas constitutional provisions) and argued evidence was seized without warrant or probable cause.
At the suppression hearing, trial counsel argued only that the traffic stop was improper and asked the court to suppress evidence based on lack of probable cause for the stop; counsel did not challenge the officer’s search of Cooks’s pockets or assert the search exceeded a Terry pat‑down.
On appeal Cooks argued the officer’s search of his pockets exceeded the scope of any lawful search (i.e., exceeded a Terry frisk); the State contended that specific objection was not raised at trial.
The court held the pocket‑search argument was not preserved because the written motion and counsel’s oral submission challenged only the stop and did not clearly raise the specific Terry‑scope objection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officer’s search of Cooks’s pockets exceeded the scope of a lawful Terry frisk, requiring suppression of evidence	Cooks: the pocket search exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry pat‑down and was therefore unconstitutional	State: Cooks did not present this specific argument to the trial court and thus waived it on appeal	Not preserved for appeal; court affirmed conviction

Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (failure to timely and specifically object forfeits appellate complaint)
Gillenwaters v. State, 205 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (purposes of preserving error for appeal)
Stinecipher v. State, 438 S.W.3d 155 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2014) (preservation principles applied)
Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (no "magic words" required; must inform trial court of complaint)
Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (articulation standard for objections)
Black v. State, 362 S.W.3d 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (motion to suppress is specialized objection)
Gomez v. State, 459 S.W.3d 651 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015) (broad suppression motions do not preserve unraised specifics)
Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (single complaint may not preserve all legal arguments)
Bekendam v. State, 441 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellate issue must comport with trial objection)
Walker v. State, 469 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015) (trial objection cannot be broadened on appeal)
Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (forfeiture where appellate theory differs from trial objection)
Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (same preservation/comportment rule)