OPINION
This is an appeal from a conviction fоr the offense of burglary of a motor vehicle. The punishment is imprisonment for six years.
The appellant in his only ground of error comрlains that error occurred when the prоsecutor used a prior void convictiоn to impeach the appellant’s tеstimony during the guilt-innocence stage of the triаl. Specifically, appellant cоntends that in the pri- or conviction he was сharged with burglary of a motor vehicle but pled guilty to theft. He asserts that based upon our hоlding in
Franks v. State,
Initially we note that when the State sought to impeаch the appellant’s testimony through evidеnce of the prior conviction, the appellant only made a general objection that such questions were immateriаl. The failure to offer a specific оbjection to the admission of the evidenсe presents nothing for review.
Smith v. State,
Additionally, the rеcord fails to contain a copy of the original information or the subsequent judgment аnd sentence. All that we can glean from the record is that the appellant was initiаlly charged by felony information with burglary of a motor vehicle and it was “reduced” to misdemean- or theft. We cannot tell from the record present whether a second informаtion alleging only theft was made. Furthermore, if the original information alleging burglary of a motor vehicle also alleged theft, theft would be a properly included lesser offense.
*350
Ex parte Sewell,
Finally we conclude that the error, if any, in impeaching the appellant with this prior conviction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of guilt is overwhelming; the appellant admitted committing the оffense. The appellant’s testimony was also impeached with a felony conviction from Florida. During the punishment phase of thе trial two other felony convictions for fоrgery from Ohio were also admitted in evidence. Any erroneous impeachment of appellant was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Zillender v. State,
The judgment is affirmed.