Esteban Gonzalez Zambrano A/K/A Esteban Zambrano Gonzalez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 27, 2023
• Docket: 13-22-00154-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-22-00154-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ESTEBAN GONZALEZ ZAMBRANO A/K/A ESTEBAN ZAMBRANO GONZALEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 443rd District Court of Ellis County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

A jury found appellant Esteban Gonzalez Zambrano a/k/a Esteban Zambrano

Gonzalez guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age, a

first-degree felony, and the trial court sentenced him to sixty years’ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021. In two issues, Zambrano contends that his sentence is

grossly disproportionate to the crime and inappropriate to him as an offender in violation

of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the

Texas Constitution. See U.S. CONST. amend. VIII; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13. We affirm. 1

I. PRESERVATION

The State contends that Zambrano failed to preserve both of his complaints

challenging his sixty-year sentence as grossly disproportionate. To preserve error for

appellate review, the complaining party must present a timely and specific objection to

the trial court and obtain a ruling. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). A party’s failure to specifically

object to an alleged disproportionate or cruel and unusual sentence in the trial court or in

a post-trial motion waives any error for the purposes of appellate review. See Rusell v.

State, 341 S.W.3d 526, 527–28 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth, 2011 no pet.); Noland v. State,

264 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d) (“[I]n order to

preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence is grossly disproportionate,

constituting cruel and unusual punishment, a defendant must present to the trial court a

timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired.”);

see also Mercado v. State, 716 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (“As a general

rule, an appellant may not assert error pertaining to his sentence or punishment where

he failed to object or otherwise raise such error in the trial court.”).

At the punishment hearing, Zambrano did not object or assert either of his

disproportionate-sentence claims when the trial court pronounced his sixty-year

1 This case is before this Court on transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco pursuant to a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. 2 sentence. Indeed, the trial court twice asked Zambrano whether there was a legal reason

why sentence should not be imposed, and Zambrano twice responded, “No, Judge.”

Zambrano also stated he had “no objection” to the judgment. Furthermore, Zambrano

failed to raise any disproportionate-sentence claim in a motion for new trial or other post-

trial motion. Therefore, Zambrano’s two issues are not preserved for our review. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Rusell, 341 S.W.3d at 527–28; Noland, 264 S.W.3d at 151; see also

Mercado, 716 S.W.2d at 296; Molina v. State, No. 10-20-00078-CR, 2021 WL 4462191,

*1 (Tex. App—Waco Sept. 29, 2021 no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(affirming judgment where appellant failed to preserve his grossly disproportionate

sentence claims). Zambrano’s issues are overruled.

II. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the 27th day of April, 2023.