Opinion
No. 06-05-00201-CR
Submitted: November 7, 2005.
Decided: November 8, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 71st Judicial District Court, Harrison County, Texas, Trial Court No. 05-0213X.
Before MORRISS, C.J., ROSS and CARTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Norman Earl McMillian, II, appeals from the revocation of his community supervision. On July 1, 2005, McMillian pled guilty for the offense of injury to an elderly individual and assault on a public servant. The trial court assessed a ten-year sentence, but suspended it and placed McMillian on five years' community supervision. On August 18, 2005, the trial court revoked his community supervision for violating its terms for assaulting a family member, and sentenced McMillian to seven years' imprisonment. McMillian's sole issue on appeal is that his sentence was disproportionate to the offense committed. We evaluate a claim of disproportionate sentencing under the standards enumerated in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 (1983), as modified in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991). We initially make a threshold comparison of the gravity of the offense against the severity of the sentence, and then consider whether the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense. See Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 846 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.); see also Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1005 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Only if we find that the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense will we compare the sentence received to sentences for similar crimes in the same jurisdiction and to sentences for the same crime in other jurisdictions. Jackson, 989 S.W.2d at 846; Davis v. State, 125 S.W.3d 734, 736 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.). McMillian did not object to the sentence on the basis that it was disproportionate during the revocation hearing or in a motion for new trial. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, an appellant must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired. Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 119 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). A defendant is required to raise a disproportionality objection in a timely manner. Delacruz v. State, 167 S.W.3d 904, 905 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.); Hookie v. State, 136 S.W.3d 671 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet.); Jackson, 989 at 845. McMillian has failed to preserve error for appellate review. Even if error had been preserved, McMillian has failed to show that his sentence is disproportionate. The sentence of seven years was within the range authorized by statute. McMillian was placed on community supervision for two acts of violence: injury to an elderly person and assault on a public servant. McMillian's community supervision was revoked for acts of violence committed against a family member. We cannot say the severity of a seven-year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of these crimes. Further, there is no evidence in the record comparing the sentence with the sentences imposed against other defendants in this or other jurisdictions who committed a similar offense. See Alberto v. State, 100 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Delacruz, 167 S.W.3d at 906. We overrule McMillian's sole point of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.