Daniel Dee Makin v. State
This text of Daniel Dee Makin v. State (Daniel Dee Makin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14-00044-CR
DANIEL DEE MAKIN, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 08-03139-CRF-272
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Daniel Makin appeals from a revocation of his community supervision for the
offense of theft of copper valued at less than $20,000, for which he was sentenced to two
years' imprisonment in the state jail. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 31.03 (e)(4)(F)(iii) (West
2011). Makin complains that the sentence imposed was excessive pursuant to the
Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Texas
Constitution. Because we find that this complaint was not preserved, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court. Makin argues that the imposition of the maximum sentence for a state jail felony
was excessive and grossly disproportionate to the offense and the violations of Makin's
community supervision pursuant to the Eighth Amendment. An appellant must make
an objection in the trial court for us to review this issue for error on appeal. TEX. R. APP.
P. 33.1(a). Claims of cruel and unusual punishment can be waived if not brought before
the trial court. See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (failure to
raise a challenge to sentence under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in
the trial court leads to waiver on appeal); Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151-52 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd) (waiver of cruel and unusual punishment
claim occurred because no objection was made at trial).
Makin did not raise any objection to the punishment at the trial court either at
the time of sentencing or in a motion for new trial. As a result, he has waived this
complaint. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Rhoades, 934 S.W.2d at 120. We overrule Makin's
sole issue.
Conclusion
Having found that Makin did not preserve his sole issue, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Makin v. State Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed October 30, 2014 Do not publish [CR25]
Makin v. State Page 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Daniel Dee Makin v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-dee-makin-v-state-texapp-2014.