Jose Muniz AKA Ricardo Zamora v. State ( 2006 )

NUMBER 13-05-562-CR

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

JOSE MUNIZ A/K/A RICARDO ZAMORA,                            Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                 Appellee.

On appeal from the 105th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                     Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Garza

                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellant, Jose Ramon Muniz a/k/a Ricardo Reyes Zamora, proceeding pro se, pleaded guilty to six counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and six counts of sexual assault of a child.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. '' 22.021(a)(1)(B)(iii)-(iv), 2(B), 22.011 (a)(2)(C) & (E) (Vernon Supp. 2005).  Appellant was convicted by a jury and assessed punishment at life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for each aggravated sexual assault count and at twenty years= imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for each sexual assault count.  The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively and that the fines be paid consecutively.  By one issue, appellant contends that the trial court=s cumulation order subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  We dismiss the appeal for failure to preserve error. 

I. Preservation of Error

By his sole issue, appellant contends the trial court erred by ordering that the sentences be served consecutively.  The State contends the issue was not preserved for our review because appellant did not raise his objection in the trial court.  We agree.   

The record reflects that although given the opportunity to object, appellant did not do so; thus, the issue was not preserved for our review.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; see also Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Ponce v. State, 89 S.W.3d 110, 114-15 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 2002, no pet.) ( finding that appellant failed to preserve his claims involving assessing illegal sentences and ordering sentences to run consecutively because he did not raise an objection in the trial court). Generally, an appellant may not complain of an error pertaining to his sentence or punishment if he has failed to object or otherwise raise error in the trial court.  See Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Ponce, 89 S.W.3d at 114-15; Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 479 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd).  Thus, because appellant failed to object to the trial court's punishment and sentence on the grounds alleged, appellant=s issue was not preserved.  See Jeffley v. State, 38 S.W.3d 847, 861 (Tex. App.‑Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for failure to preserve error.

_______________________

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

Justice

Do not publish.                                             

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 6th day of July, 2006.