Opinion
NO. 01-11-00942-CR
04-19-2012
JEFFREY CORTEZ FARRIS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellees
On Appeal from the 209th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1298889
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jeffrey Cortez Farris appeals a sentence entered upon his guilty plea to the felony offense of aggravated robbery.Farris contends that the trial court's sentence was excessive and grossly disproportionate to the crime committed, violating his rights under the United States and the Texas Constitutions.We hold that Farris failed to preserve his complaint for appeal and therefore affirm.
Background
Farrispled guilty to robbery with a deadly weapon after taking aniPad while wielding an unopened knife. When Farris first attempted to take the iPad, the victim dropped it.While the victim picked up the iPad, Farris removed a knife from his pocket.Holding the unopened knife at his hip, Farris took the iPad.Moments later, Farris boarded a buswith the iPad in hand.The police arrived and arrested Farris on the bus.Farris testified that, on the day in question, he had taken one Xanax pill and was high at the time of the robbery.
Farriswas charged withrobbery with a deadly weapon.He waived his right to trial and entered a guilty plea without an agreed recommendation from the State regarding punishment.Following the pre-sentence investigation, during which Farris requested probation, thetrial court sentenced Farris to five years' confinement.Farris did not object to the pronounced sentence at trial.
Preservation of Error
Farris contends the trial court's punishment was grossly disproportionate to the crime committed and thus violated his state and federal constitutional rights.The State responds that Farris waived this alleged error by failing to make an objection attrial.
To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must make a timely, specific objection and obtain an adverse ruling. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Steadman v. State, 31 S.W.3d 738, 741 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd).This requirement serves two main purposes: (1) to inform the trial court of the objection and give the trial court an opportunity to rule on it, and (2) to give opposing counsel the opportunity to take appropriate action in response. SeeGarza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79, 82 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). To preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, a defendant must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (concluding that defendant waived error because he presented argument for first time on appeal); Wynn v. State, 219 S.W.3d 54, 61 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (holding that defendant's failure to object to life sentence as cruel and unusual punishment waived error); Solisv. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd) (holding that defendant could not assert cruel and unusual punishment for first time on appeal).
The record of the punishment hearing indicates that Farris had some prior criminal history related to drug use, possession, and distribution. The trial court assessed the minimum statutory sentence for aggravated robbery: five years.Tex. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32(a) (West 2011).After the trial court announced its sentence, Farris did not object to the assessed sentence or otherwise argue that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article 1, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution.He therefore failed to preserve this alleged error.See Jacoby v. State, 227 S.W.3d 128, 130-31 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd) (holding that defendant waived contention that sentence for aggravated robbery constituted unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment when he failed to object to length of sentence at trial).
Relying upon Meadaux v. State, 325 S.W.3d 189, 193 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), Farris argues that this Court should nevertheless consider his complaint because his sentence is cruel and unusual. This Court has already rejected that argument, as has our sister court. See Quezada v. State, No. 01-11-00262-CR, 2011 WL 6015698, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 1, 2011, pet. ref'd) (mem. op.); Williams v. State, No. 14-11-00139-CR, 2011 WL 6287972, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 15, 2011, pet. ref'd). Farris was required to preserve his constitutional challenges to the length of his sentence by raising them before the trial court. Having failed to do so, he may not raise them on appeal.
CONCLUSION
Farris failed to preserve anappealable error as to the constitutionality of his sentence, which was the minimum sentence within the statutory range. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Harvey Brown
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011).