Jonathan Brandon Lewis v. State ( 2016 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00450-CR
JONATHAN BRANDON LEWIS APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1249159D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
This is an appeal from a judgment revoking deferred adjudication
community supervision and adjudicating guilt. In 2012, Appellant Jonathan
Brandon Lewis pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to aggravated
robbery with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (West
2011). Following this plea, the trial court placed Lewis on six years’ deferred
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
adjudication community supervision and imposed a $600 fine. In 2015, the State
filed its third petition to proceed to adjudication, alleging that Lewis had failed to
report to his supervision officer as ordered in July 2015 and that he had been
discharged from the Salvation Army’s aftercare program on July 23, 2015, for
violating house rules and for failing to follow through on his behavioral contract.
Lewis pleaded true to both allegations. The trial court found the State’s
allegations to be true, revoked Lewis’s deferred adjudication community
supervision, adjudicated his guilt of the offense of aggravated robbery with a
deadly weapon, and sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement. In a single
issue, Lewis argues that the fifteen-year sentence imposed by the trial court is
excessive and disproportionate. We will affirm.
Lewis concedes that he did not object to his punishment when it was
imposed, nor did he raise this complaint in a motion for new trial. We have held
on numerous occasions that this type of claim must be preserved at the trial court
level. See Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet.
ref’d); Acosta v. State, 160 S.W.3d 204, 211 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no
pet.); see also Cisneros v. State, No. 02-06-00103-CR, 2007 WL 80002, at *1
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 11, 2007, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (collecting cases); cf. Burt v. State, 396 S.W.3d 574, 577 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2013) (“A sentencing issue may be preserved by objecting at the
punishment hearing, or when the sentence is pronounced.”). Because Lewis did
2
not raise his complaint in the trial court, the complaint is forfeited. 2 We overrule
Lewis’s sole issue.
Having overruled Lewis’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Sue Walker
SUE WALKER
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; WALKER and SUDDERTH, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: April 7, 2016
2
Even if we were to reach the merits of Lewis’s complaint, his punishment
is within the statutory limits for the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.32
(West 2011), § 29.03(b). Punishment that is imposed within the statutory limits
and based upon the sentencer’s informed normative judgment is generally not
subject to challenge for excessiveness except in “‘exceedingly rare’” situations.
Kim, 283 S.W.3d at 475–76 (quoting Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320, 323–24
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006)).
3