Darion Amos v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Opinion issued December 20, 2016.
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    For The
    First District of Texas
    ————————————
    NO. 01-15-00980-CR
    ———————————
    DARION AMOS, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 178th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Case No. 1408362
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant Darion Amos pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery of an individual
    over sixty-five years of age or disabled,1 and the trial court assessed his punishment
    1
    See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West Supp. 2016).
    at sixteen years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. In one
    issue, appellant argues that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense
    committed and, therefore, it violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States
    Constitution. See U.S. CONST. amend. VIII.
    The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, including
    “extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime” committed.
    Graham v. Florida, 
    560 U.S. 48
    , 59–60, 
    130 S. Ct. 2011
    , 2021 (2010) (citation
    omitted). But, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment is waivable,
    and thus, claims of a disproportionate sentence must be preserved for appellate
    review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Noland v. State, 
    264 S.W.3d 144
    , 151 (Tex. App.—
    Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d). To preserve a complaint for appellate review,
    the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely
    request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired. See
    TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1). The record does not demonstrate that appellant asserted
    his grossly disproportionate sentence claim to the trial court during his sentencing
    hearing, in a post-trial motion, or at any other time. Therefore, we hold that error
    was not preserved. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); 
    Noland, 264 S.W.3d at 151
    .
    We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
    2
    Conclusion
    We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    Russell Lloyd
    Justice
    Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd.
    Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-15-00980-CR

Filed Date: 12/20/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/26/2016