Prudencio Mandez Ortiz v. State ( 2013 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00481-CR
Prudencio Mandez Ortiz § From the 371st District Court
§ of Tarrant County (0585532D)
v. § January 31, 2013
§ Per Curiam
The State of Texas § (nfp)
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that
there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00481-CR
PRUDENCIO MANDEZ ORTIZ APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
I. Introduction and Background
Appellant Prudencio Mandez Ortiz appeals the trial court’s judgment
adjudicating his guilt and sentencing him to fifteen years in prison for the offense
of indecency with a child by contact, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal
Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1), (d) (West 2011). The applicable punishment range is
two to twenty years’ confinement. See id. § 12.33(a) (West 2011). In his sole
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
issue, Appellant contends that his fifteen-year sentence is grossly
disproportionate to the facts of the probationary violations and violates
constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm.
II. Discussion
Appellant contends that his sentence constitutes an abuse of the trial
court’s discretion because it is excessive given the facts surrounding his
allegedly technical violations of the terms of his community supervision, his
advanced age, and his medical conditions. Appellant did not, however, object to
his sentence when it was imposed or complain about the length of his sentence
in a motion for new trial. See Means v. State, 347 S.W.3d 873, 874 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 2011, no pet.) (holding complaint not preserved on appeal because
appellant did not object to sentence when imposed or present motion for new trial
raising that argument to trial court); Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d) (holding failure to object to sentence at time of
imposition or complain of sentence in motion for new trial does not preserve
complaint for appellate review); Washington v. State, 271 S.W.3d 755, 756 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (holding disproportionate sentence
complaint not preserved because appellant did not present his motion for new
trial to trial court). Because Appellant did not object to his sentence when it was
imposed or file and present a motion for new trial to the trial court raising his
contention, he failed to preserve his sentencing complaint for appellate review.
See Tex. R. App. P. 21.6, 33.1(a); Means, 347 S.W.3d at 874; Kim, 283 S.W.3d
2
at 475; Washington, 271 S.W.3d at 756. We therefore overrule Appellant’s sole
issue. See Kim, 283 S.W.3d at 475–76.
III. Conclusion
Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: January 31, 2013
3