Antonio Carrillo v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 13, 2005
• Docket: 01-04-00731-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 13, 2005

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-04-00731-CR

__________

ANTONIO CARRILLO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 923502

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Antonio Carrillo, pled guilty to aggravated assault of a public servant. He was placed on deferred adjudication for eight years. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt in which it alleged that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his deferred adjudication. After finding the allegations set forth in the motion to be true, the trial court sentenced appellant to 18 years in prison. On appeal, appellant asserts that his sentence is disproportionate to his offense; therefore, it deprives him of the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 13 of the Texas Constitution. The State contends that appellant waived his complaint by failing to make a timely objection to the sentence. We affirm.

Waiver

          In his sole point of error, appellant argues that his 18-year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

          In order to preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have presented the trial court with a timely request, objection or motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Generally, an appellant must raise an error pertaining to his sentence or punishment in the trial court in order to preserve it for appellate review. Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Because appellant did not object to the sentence at trial, the issue of cruel and unusual punishment has been waived. See Idouwu v. State, 73 S.W.3d 918, 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

          Almost any right, constitutional or statutory, may be waived when the defendant’s contentions were not raised by objection. Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Forbes v. State, 976 S.W.2d 749, 752 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.). By failing to present an objection at trial, appellant waived his claim of cruel and unusual punishment. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d).           Appellant’s sole point of error is overruled.

Conclusion

          We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                        George C. Hanks, Jr.

                                                                        Justice

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Hanks.

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