Patricia Hallmark v. State
Opinion
V.
Patricia Hallmark, appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss her appeal. The motion is signed by Hallmark and by her counsel in compliance with Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2, we grant the motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: January 12, 2009
Date Decided: January 13, 2009
Do Not Publish
mely manner); Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd) (failure to complain to trial court that sentences were cruel and unusual waived claim of error for appellate review). We have reviewed the record of the trial proceeding. No relevant request, objection, or motion was made. And, while this Court has held that a motion for new trial is an appropriate way to preserve this type of claim for review (see Williamson v. State, 175 S.W.3d 522, 523-24 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2005, no pet.); Delacruz v. State, 167 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2005, no pet.)), Walker's motion for new trial did not contain an allegation that the sentence was disproportionate to the offense. He has not preserved such an issue for appeal.
Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: August 28, 2008
Date Decided: August 29, 2008
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Patricia Hallmark v. State (Patricia Hallmark v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.