Leonard James Hall v. State ( 2015 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00094-CR
LEONARD JAMES HALL APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1352061D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
This is an appeal from a judgment revoking deferred adjudication
community supervision and adjudicating guilt. In 2013, Appellant Leonard James
Hall pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011).
Following this plea, the trial court placed Hall on seven years’ deferred
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
adjudication community supervision and imposed a $700 fine. In 2015, the State
filed a petition to proceed to adjudication, alleging in five paragraphs multiple
violations by Hall of the conditions of his deferred adjudication community
supervision. Hall pleaded not true to all five alleged violations. The trial court
found that Hall had committed the violations alleged in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5;
revoked Hall’s deferred adjudication community supervision; adjudicated his guilt
of the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; and sentenced him to
seven years’ confinement. In a single issue, Hall argues that the seven-year
sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive and disproportionate. We will
affirm.
Hall 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 May 23, 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 Hall did
2
not raise his complaint in the trial court, the complaint is forfeited. 2 We overrule
Hall’s sole issue.
Having overruled Hall’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Sue Walker
SUE WALKER
JUSTICE
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 27, 2015
2
Even if we were to reach the merits of Hall’s complaint, his punishment is
within the statutory limits for the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.33(a),
30.02(c)(2) (West 2011). 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 476 (quoting Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320, 323–24
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006)); see also Davis v. State, 323 S.W.3d 190, 195–96 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref’d) (stating that punishment within statutory range was
not excessive, cruel, or unusual when defendant argued that the penitentiary
could not provide treatment for his medical condition).
3