Rene Abril v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 2, 2006
Docket14-06-00222-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Rene Abril v. State (Rene Abril v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rene Abril v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 2, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 2, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00222-CR

RENE ABRIL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 209th District Court

 Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1042894

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Rene Abril entered a plea of guilty to theft of property valued between $100,000 and $200,000 from an elderly individual.  The trial court found him guilty and sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.  In two issues, appellant claims his sentence of twenty years violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment found in both the United States= constitution and the constitution of the State of Texas.


As this court has held, these complaints are not preserved for appellate review unless they are raised in the trial court.  See Jagaroo v. State, 180 S.W.3d 793, 802 (Tex.App. B Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, ).  See also Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved);  Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex.App.‑Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd) (holding "[t]he constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment may be waived.").  The record does not reflect appellant made any objection at trial to the imposition of his sentence, nor did appellant file a motion for new trial challenging his sentence.   Consequently, appellant=s arguments were not preserved for our review. See Nicholas, 56 S.W.3d at 768. Issues one and two are overruled.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 2, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nicholas v. State
56 S.W.3d 760 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Jagaroo v. State
180 S.W.3d 793 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Curry v. State
910 S.W.2d 490 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rene Abril v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rene-abril-v-state-texapp-2006.