Michael Speights v. State

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-05-00145-CR

______________________________

MICHAEL STANLEY SPEIGHTS, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

                                              

On Appeal from the 71st Judicial District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 05-0090X

---

                                                 

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Michael Stanley Speights appeals his convictions on eight counts of possession of child pornography. The trial court assessed the maximum punishment on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently with sentences in a companion case in which Speights was convicted on two counts of indecency with a child by sexual conduct, one count of indecency with a child by exposure, and ten counts of promotion or production of child pornography. The total punishment assessed was 250 years.

          The briefs and argument raised in Speights' sole point of error are identical to those raised in Speights' first point of error in Speights v. State, No. 06-05-00144-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise resolve the issue in this appeal. Speights waived review of the issue of excessive and disproportionate punishment. Further, even if error had been preserved, the record does not contain evidence that would allow us to make a proper determination of the issue. Accordingly, we overrule Speights' sole point of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

                                                                           Donald R. Ross

                                                                           Justice

Date Submitted:      September 29, 2005

Date Decided:         October 27, 2005

Do Not Publish

ion Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In The

  Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

 

                                                ______________________________

 

                                                             No. 06-10-00229-CR

                                                ______________________________

 

 

                                         BOBBY RAPER, II, Appellant

 

                                                                V.

 

                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

 

                                                                                                  

 

 

                                         On Appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court

                                                              Delta County, Texas

                                                             Trial Court No. 7080

 

                                                                                                   

 

 

 

                                          Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

                                              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

                                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

In Delta County, Texas, Bobby Raper, II, was indicted for burglary of a habitation.  Raper pled guilty and received a ten-year sentence, which was probated for ten years.^[1]  Ten months later, the State moved to revoke Raper’s community supervision, alleging that Raper failed to satisfy six conditions of his community supervision.  He pled true to all of the allegations except for failure to complete community service.  After a hearing, the trial court revoked Raper’s community supervision and sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration.

On appeal, Raper argues in his sole point of error that the sentence imposed by the trial court is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.

            We affirm the trial court’s judgment because this issue was not preserved for our review.

 

            To preserve error for appellate review, a defendant must make a timely request, objection, or motion, and obtain a ruling from the trial court.  Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.  This requirement applies even to assertions that a sentence is cruel and unusual.  Richardson v. State, 328 S.W.3d 61, 72 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d) (citing Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d) (cited by Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 844 n.3 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.)); see also Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).  

            After the trial court revoked his community supervision and sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration, Raper filed a motion for new trial.^[2]  In his motion, he argued that the trial court should grant him a new trial because “the verdict in this cause is contrary to the law and the evidence,” and because “the trial court has the discretion to grant a new trial in the interest of justice.”  The motion failed to argue that the sentence was cruel and unusual or otherwise disproportionate.  Therefore, this issue was not preserved for our review,^[3] and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                           

 

 

                                                                                    Jack Carter

                                                                                    Justice

 

Date Submitted:          July 5, 2011

Date Decided:             July 6, 2011

 

Do Not Publish

 

---

^[1]Raper was also assessed a $200.00 fine, $300.00 in attorney’s fees, and $343.00 in court costs.

^[2]Raper made no other objection to the trial court’s judgment.

 

^[3]Even if the contention had been preserved for review, the contention fails.  Since the sentence is within the statutory range, there is no indication that the severity of the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense, and no evidence establishes the sentence’s disproportionality as compared with other sentences in this or other jurisdictions.  See Mullins v. State, 208 S.W.3d 469, 470 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.).