Lashara Wynette Bishop v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
• Decided: March 16, 2026
• Docket: 07-25-00090-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00090-CR

LASHARA WYNETTE BISHOP, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 100th District Court Childress County, Texas Trial Court No. 7086, Honorable Dale A. Rabe, Jr., Presiding

March 16, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Lashara Wynette Bishop, appeals from the trial court’s judgment

adjudicating her guilty of engaging in organized criminal activity, a first-degree felony, and

sentencing her to fifty years of confinement. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 71.02. By a single

issue, Appellant argues that her sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Because Appellant did not preserve this complaint,

we affirm. BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by information with engaging in organized criminal activity.

The information alleged that Appellant, with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate

in a combination, committed assault by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing

bodily injury to Brayden Smith by striking him with her hand. The information further

alleged that she used or exhibited a deadly weapon—a 2 x 4 piece of lumber—during the

commission of the offense. The trial court placed Appellant on deferred adjudication

community supervision for five years, fined her $500, and made an affirmative deadly-

weapon finding.

The State later moved to adjudicate guilt. It alleged that Appellant failed to

complete 200 hours of community service by October 1, 2024; failed to attend, participate

in, and successfully complete education classes, counseling, or rehabilitative services

deemed necessary by the community supervision officer; and failed to turn herself in to

the Childress County Sheriff’s Office on September 25, 2024, as required by the

supplemental conditions of supervision. The judgment adjudicating guilt reflects a plea

of true to the motion to adjudicate, findings that Appellant violated conditions 13, 18, and

33, and a sentence of fifty years’ confinement. The statutory range for a first-degree

felony is five to ninety-nine years or life. Id. § 12.32.

ANALYSIS

To preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence is grossly

disproportionate, a defendant must present to the trial court a timely request, objection,

or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Smith

2 v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). When the sentence falls within

the statutory range, the failure to object when it is imposed or to raise the complaint in a

post-trial motion waives the issue on appeal. Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d).

Appellant did not object when the trial court imposed her sentence. Nor did she

raise a disproportionality claim in a motion for new trial.1 Her complaint is therefore

unpreserved. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Appellant’s sole issue is overruled.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Lawrence M. Doss Justice

Do not publish.

1 Although she filed a motion for new trial, Appellant asserted only that the finding was contrary to

the law and the evidence and that the trial court should grant a new trial in the interest of justice. 3