Ramon G. Juarez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 26, 2002
• Docket: 13-01-00814-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                   NUMBER 13-01-814-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                CORPUS CHRISTI

RAMON G. JUAREZ,                                                           Appellant,

                                                   v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                       Appellee.

      On appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas.

                                   O P I N I O N

                     Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Castillo

                                   Opinion by Justice Yañez

Appellant, Ramon G. Juarez, appeals from the trial court=s revocation of his community supervision.  On May 23, 1995, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance, less than twenty-eight ounces of cocaine.^[1]  He was sentenced to five years imprisonment and a $500 fine, suspended for five years.  On December 6, 1996, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant=s community supervision.  Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the State=s  motion.  The trial court found the allegations true and assessed punishment at five years imprisonment and a $500 fine.  In a single point of error, appellant contends his sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.^[2]  We affirm.

Appellant made no objection to his sentence to the trial court, either at the time of sentencing or in any post-trial motion, on any grounds, nor did he ever lodge an objection, under constitutional or other grounds, to any part of the sentencing procedure or to the alleged disparity, cruelty, unusualness or excessiveness of the sentence.  Even constitutional claims can be waived by failure to object.  Smith v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).  To preserve an error for appellate review, a party must present a timely objection to the trial court, state the specific grounds for the objection, and obtain a ruling.  Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).  Generally, an appellant may not complain of an error pertaining to his sentence or punishment if he has failed to object or otherwise raise error in the trial court.  Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); see also Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd)  (claim of grossly disproportionate sentence violative of Eighth Amendment waived by failure to object); Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 479 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd)(failure to object to sentence as cruel and unusual waives error).  Appellant failed to preserve his claim of error in the present case.

We overrule appellant=s sole point of error and AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court. 

LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ                                                                                                                                                Justice

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this the

26th day of September, 2002.

---

^[1]See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. '481.115 (Vernon Supp. 2002).

^[2]See U.S. Const. amends. VIII, XIV.