Sergio Fonza-Carey v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                     In The
    Court of Appeals
    Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
    No. 06-15-00201-CR
    SERGIO FONZA-CAREY, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 188th District Court
    Gregg County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 43866-A
    Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Pursuant to an open plea, the trial court found Sergio Fonza-Carey guilty of unlawful
    possession of a firearm by a felon.1 After a trial to the bench, the trial court imposed the minimum
    sentence of two years’ imprisonment.2 On appeal, Fonza-Carey complains that the punishment
    imposed violates the prohibition against disproportionate sentences under the Eighth Amendment
    to the United States Constitution.
    To preserve a complaint for appellate review, Fonza-Carey must have presented to the trial
    court a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the specific grounds for his desired ruling,
    or the complaint must be apparent from the context. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Hookie v.
    State, 
    136 S.W.3d 671
    , 679–80 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.). We have previously held
    that to preserve a disproportionate sentence complaint on appeal, a defendant must either object at
    the time the sentence is imposed, or assert the complaint in a timely filed motion for new trial. See
    Mullins v. State, 
    208 S.W.3d 469
    , 470 n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.); 
    Hookie, 136 S.W.3d at 680
    ; Jackson v. State, 
    989 S.W.2d 842
    , 845 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.). Our
    review of the record shows that this complaint was not presented to the trial court.3 Therefore,
    Fonza-Carey’s sole complaint on appeal has not been preserved for our review.
    1
    See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(a), (c) (West 2011).
    2
    See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.34(a) (West 2011).
    3
    Fonza-Carey made no objection when his sentence was imposed. Although he filed a generalized motion for new
    trial, the motion did not raise the issue of a grossly disproportionate sentence or assert a violation of the Eighth
    Amendment of the United States Constitution.
    2
    We affirm the judgment.
    Bailey C. Moseley
    Justice
    Date Submitted:    August 19, 2016
    Date Decided:      August 22, 2016
    Do Not Publish
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-15-00201-CR

Filed Date: 8/22/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/23/2016