Sophia Castillo v. State
This text of Sophia Castillo v. State (Sophia Castillo 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.
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15-00385-CR
SOPHIA CASTILLO, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 40th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 39226CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Sophia Castillo was convicted of the offense of fraudulent use or possession of
identifying information, which was enhanced to a third degree felony by two prior state
jail felony convictions. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.51 (West 2011). Castillo was
sentenced to the maximum sentence of ten years in prison and a $10,000 fine. In two
issues, Castillo complains that her sentence violates her rights pursuant to the United
States and Texas Constitutions because the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the
crime and inappropriate as applied to her. At trial, Castillo never objected to the sentence she received nor did she file a
motion for new trial on the basis that her sentence violated the 8th Amendment to the
United States Constitution or Article I, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution. See U.S.
CONST. amend. VIII; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13. An objection on this basis must be made to
the trial court in order to be preserved. Because no such objection was made, we find
that Castillo's complaints were not preserved for our review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A);
Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912,
918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (reviewing court will not consider errors, even of
constitutional magnitude, not called to the trial court's attention). See also Rhoades v. State,
934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that complaint relating to
constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was waived when no
objection on this basis was made in trial court). Because Castillo's first and second issues
were not preserved, they are overruled.
Conclusion
Having found that Castillo's complaints were not properly preserved, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Castillo v. State Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed September 21, 2016 Do not publish [CR25]
Castillo v. State Page 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sophia Castillo v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sophia-castillo-v-state-texapp-2016.