Francis E. Robinson III v. State ( 2004 )

Opinion issued April 8, 2004

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-03-00409-CR

---

FRANCIS E. ROBINSON, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 826765

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          A jury found appellant, Francis E. Robinson, III, guilty of aggravated robbery and assessed his punishment at 10 years’ confinement and a $5,000 fine, and he was placed on supervision for 10 years. The State later moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the State’s allegations that he violated the conditions of his community supervision, and the trial judge revoked appellant’s community supervision and assessed punishment at 10 years’ confinement and a $5,000 fine. In two related points of error, appellant challenges the sentence imposed after his community supervision was revoked. We affirm.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

          In two related points of error, appellant contends that the sentence imposed by the trial court is disproportionate to the offense committed and is a violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 13 of the Texas Constitution. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Tex. Const. Art. I, § 13.

          To preserve his complaint of cruel and unusual punishment for appellate review, appellant had to present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling he desired. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); In re C.E.M., 64 S.W.3d 425, 427 (Tex. App.––Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.); Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d). A specific objection must be made in the trial court to preserve a federal or state constitutional claim of cruel and unusual punishment. Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex. App.––Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d).

          A specific objection to the trial court brings the trial court’s attention to a possible error that it may correct. See Solis, 945 S.W.2d at 301 (“The purpose for the rule is to allow opposing counsel to remove the objection or the trial court to cure any harm.”). By not objecting in the trial court, the defendant in Solis waived appellate review of his claims that a 20-year sentence for aggravated assault and a 40-year sentence for aggravated robbery were grossly disproportionate to the offenses and violated his federal and state constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Id.

          Appellant failed to preserve this issue on appeal. The record contains neither an objection by appellant when he was sentenced, nor a motion for new trial after he was sentenced, concerning any complaints that his sentence was cruel and unusual. We hold that appellant waived any argument that his punishment was disproportionate to the offense and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

          We overrule both of appellant’s points of error.

  Conclusion

          We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                             Evelyn V. Keyes

                                                             Justice

Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Keyes.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).