Charles Randolf Curnutte v. State ( 2000 )

NUMBER 13-99-074-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

__________________________________________________________

CHARLES RANDOLF CURNUTTE,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden, and Justices Dorsey and Yañez

Opinion by Justice Yañez

Appellant, Charles Randolf Curnutte, pleaded guilty on an open plea to one count of felony aggravated sexual assault⁽¹⁾ and one count of indecency with a child.⁽²⁾ The trial court sentenced him to twenty years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant contends the punishment was disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense, in violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution. We overrule the issue and affirm the conviction.

At the hearing on punishment, appellant did not state a specific objection to the sentence on the grounds complained of on appeal. In order 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 he desired if those grounds were not apparent from the context. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1). Almost any right, constitutional or statutory, may be waived by failure to make a timely and specific objection. Little v. State, 758 S.W.2d 551, 563 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Jones v. State, 825 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1991, pet. ref'd). As a general rule, an appellant cannot assert error pertaining to his sentence or punishment when he failed to raise such error in the trial court. Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). This Court has previously reached the same conclusion when the defendant's contentions were not raised in either a motion for new trial or by objection. Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 479 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd).

Appellant failed to raise this issue in the trial court, and has thus failed to preserve it for review. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1). We overrule the issue.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

_________________________ LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 31st day of August, 2000.

1. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (Vernon Supp. 2000).

2. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.11(a)(1), (c) (Vernon Supp. 2000).