Howellv.State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, HoustonFeb 20, 2007
No. 14-06-00036-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 20, 2007)

No. 14-06-00036-CR

Opinion filed February 20, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. 3 TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 228th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1032512.

Panel consists of Justices FROST, SEYMORE and GUZMAN.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


KEM THOMPSON FROST, Justice.

Challenging his conviction for aggravated robbery, appellant, Eric Allen Howell, contends the trial court erred by assessing a punishment that is grossly disproportionate to the crime committed, thereby violating his constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged with the felony offense of aggravated robbery. He pleaded guilty without an agreement as to punishment. The trial court sentenced him to eighteen years' confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

II. ISSUE PRESENTED

In a single issue, appellant contends the punishment the trial court assessed is grossly disproportionate to the crime committed, thus violating his state and federal constitutional rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. See U.S. CONST. amend. VIII; TEX. CONST. art. I, section 13. The State responds that because appellant failed to object at trial that his eighteen-year sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment, he is precluded from raising the issue on appeal. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party is required to make a timely, specific objection and obtain an adverse ruling. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Almost every right, constitutional and statutory, may be waived by failing to object. See Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d. 760, 768 (Tex.App.-Houston (14th Dist.) 2001, pet. ref'd.). The failure to specifically object to an alleged disproportionate sentence in the trial court or in a post-trial motion waives any error. See, e.g., id; Steadman v. State, 31 S.W.3d. 738, 742 (Tex.App.-Houston (1st Dist.) 2000, pet. ref'd.). Because appellant did not voice his objection in the trial court and is raising the issue for the first time on appeal, his argument is not preserved for appellate review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Even if appellant had not waived his complaint, we would find no merit in it because appellant's punishment was assessed within the statutory range, and he has not demonstrated that his eighteen-year sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offense for which he was convicted. The punishment range for aggravated robbery includes imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ninety-nine years or life. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32(a) Vernon (2003). Appellant's eighteen-year sentence is not disproportionate and does not violate the federal or state constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. See Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481, 486 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983); Benjamin v. State, 874 S.W.2d 132, 134-135 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.). Accordingly, we overrule the appellant's sole issue on appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Affirmed.