Israel Naranjo v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 24, 2004
• Docket: 13-03-00154-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-03-154-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ISRAEL NARANJO,                                                                    Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                     Appellee.

On appeal from the 156^th District Court of Live Oak County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza

Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellant, Israel Naranjo, pled guilty to the offense of possession of an illegal weapon, a third degree felony. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 46.05 (Vernon 2004). The trial judge originally assessed punishment at eight years of community supervision. However, because of appellant’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of his supervision, the trial court subsequently revoked community supervision and assessed punishment at ten years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Institutional Division. We affirm.

Appellant’s sole issue is that the punishment of ten years confinement violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution because the punishment is disproportionate to the seriousness of the alleged offense. Appellant contends that it is within the appellate court’s power to review an imposed sentence and to determine if the sentence passes constitutional muster.

In order for an appellant to bring a complaint of disproportionate punishment under appellate review, the appellant must first raise a timely objection to his sentence at trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 119 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The record indicates that appellant did not raise an objection to his sentence at the time it was announced, and his failure to do so constitutes a waiver of his constitutional right. See Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 479 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref’d).

Accordingly, appellant’s sole point of error 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Do not Publish.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)

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 24^th day of June, 2004.