Summary
holding that an appellant forfeited his complaint about the excessiveness of his sentence following a revocation of community supervision for "technical violations" because the appellant did not object to his sentence in the trial court
Summary of this case from Long v. StateOpinion
NO. 02-11-00481-CR
01-31-2013
Prudencio Mandez Ortiz v. The State of Texas
From the 371st District Court
of Tarrant County (0585532D)
Per Curiam
(nfp)
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there was no error in the trial court's judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM
NO. 02-11-00481-CR
PRUDENCIO MANDEZ ORTIZ APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. Introduction and Background
Appellant Prudencio Mandez Ortiz appeals the trial court's judgment adjudicating his guilt and sentencing him to fifteen years in prison for the offense of indecency with a child by contact, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1), (d) (West 2011). The applicable punishment range is two to twenty years' confinement. See id. § 12.33(a) (West 2011). In his sole issue, Appellant contends that his fifteen-year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the facts of the probationary violations and violates constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm.
II. Discussion
Appellant contends that his sentence constitutes an abuse of the trial court's discretion because it is excessive given the facts surrounding his allegedly technical violations of the terms of his community supervision, his advanced age, and his medical conditions. Appellant did not, however, object to his sentence when it was imposed or complain about the length of his sentence in a motion for new trial. See Means v. State, 347 S.W.3d 873, 874 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 2011, no pet.) (holding complaint not preserved on appeal because appellant did not object to sentence when imposed or present motion for new trial raising that argument to trial court); Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref'd) (holding failure to object to sentence at time of imposition or complain of sentence in motion for new trial does not preserve complaint for appellate review); Washington v. State, 271 S.W.3d 755, 756 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref'd) (mem. op.) (holding disproportionate sentence complaint not preserved because appellant did not present his motion for new trial to trial court). Because Appellant did not object to his sentence when it was imposed or file and present a motion for new trial to the trial court raising his contention, he failed to preserve his sentencing complaint for appellate review. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.6, 33.1(a); Means, 347 S.W.3d at 874; Kim, 283 S.W.3d at 475; Washington, 271 S.W.3d at 756. We therefore overrule Appellant's sole issue. See Kim, 283 S.W.3d at 475-76.
III. Conclusion
Having overruled Appellant's sole issue, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
PER CURIAM PANEL: GARDNER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.