Christopher Gutierrez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 6, 2005
• Docket: 13-04-00296-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                              NUMBER 13-04-296-CR                      

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

CHRISTOPHER GUTIERREZ,                                                         Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                 Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

           Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Castillo and Garza

                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza          

Angel Medina was shot and killed in a drive-by shooting on August 6, 2003.  Appellant, Christopher Gutierrez, was indicted for Medina=s murder, along with four other co-defendants, Mark Rios, Judas Tamayo Leal, Adrian Mendoza, and Billy Joe Martinez.  Appellant, Rios, and Leal were tried jointly, and the jury found them guilty of murder.  Appellant elected to have the trial court determine his punishment, which was assessed at imprisonment for 40 years.  Appellant now contends that his sentence is cruel and unusual and disproportionate to the severity of the offense and therefore violates protections afforded to him under the United States Constitution.

There is no indication in the record that appellant raised any objection with the trial court regarding his sentence.  Several intermediate appellate courts have held that complaints such as appellant=s cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.  See Steadman v. State, 160 S.W.3d 582, 586 (Tex. App.CWaco 2005, no pet.); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.CDallas 2003, no pet.); Jackson v. State, 69 S.W.3d 657, 658B59 (Tex. App.CTexarkana 2002, no pet.); Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref=d).  In keeping with this precedent, we hold that appellant has failed to preserve for appellate review the complaint he now seeks to raise.  Accordingly, appellant=s sole issue on appeal is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

_______________________

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

Justice

Do not publish.                                             

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 6th day of October, 2005.