Nos. 14-05-01126-CR, 14-05-01127-CR
Opinion filed November 2, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 179th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 892,066 892,067. Affirmed.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices SEYMORE, and MIRABAL.
Senior Justice Margaret Garner Mirabal sitting by assignment.
CHARLES W. SEYMORE, Justice.
Appellant, Norman Steven Pollard, was charged with two counts of indecency with a child. He pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on probation for eight years and assessed a $500 fine. After appellant violated terms and conditions of his community supervision, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. The trial court adjudicated appellant's guilt and assessed punishment at confinement for ten years and a $500 fine. Because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion and affirm. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
DISCUSSION
In two issues, appellant contends (1) the punishment violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution because it was cruel and unusual under the circumstances of the Texas scheme for deferred adjudication, and (2) the punishment violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the trial court allegedly misled appellant into believing he had the right to appeal. However, appellant failed to preserve these complaints for appellate review. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have presented the trial court with a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired if those grounds were not apparent from the context. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Even constitutional errors may be waived by failure to object at trial. Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Failure to make a specific objection at trial constitutes waiver of an Eighth Amendment claim of cruel and unusual punishment. Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (holding error not preserved where appellant failed to object at trial concerning cruel and unusual punishment); Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex.App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd) (holding error not preserved where appellant failed to object to the sentences as violating his constitutional rights at the time they were announced); see also Hardeman v. State, 1 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (holding appellant failed to preserve error where given an opportunity to object after guilt was adjudicated and before judge pronounced the sentence). In this case, appellant failed to object on Eighth Amendment grounds either before or after the trial court pronounced his sentence. Therefore, appellant waived his Eighth Amendment complaints. We overrule appellant's first and second issues. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.