Ronnie LeCharles Landon v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed November 18, 2022
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00311-CR
RONNIE LECHARLES LANDON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 20-40001-86-F
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Nowell, Smith, and Rosenberg1
Opinion by Justice Rosenberg
A Kaufman County jury convicted appellant Ronnie Lecharles Landon of
aggravated assault on a family member with a deadly weapon causing serious bodily
injury, a first-degree felony carrying a punishment range of 5 to 99 years. TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.32(a), 22.02(b)(1). The jury assessed punishment at 30
years’ confinement, and the trial court sentenced Landon accordingly.
In his first issue on appeal, Landon argues that his sentence was grossly
disproportionate to his crime under the United States Constitution. In his second
1
The Hon. Barbara Rosenberg, Justice, Assigned.
issue, he asserts much the same argument under the Texas Constitution. Landon
contends that these are separate and distinct issues because of semantic differences
between our two governing documents, but we see no material difference in the
arguments or the relevant law. “Using nearly identical language, both the United
States and Texas Constitutions prohibit cruel and/or unusual punishment[,] and the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has concluded there is no significant difference
between the protections afforded in the two provisions.” Forbit v. State, No. 05-19-
00946-CR, 2021 WL 1884655, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 11, 2021, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing, inter alia, Cantu v. State, 939
S.W.2d 627, 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).
To begin, we address preservation because we “may not reverse a judgment
of conviction without first addressing any issue of error preservation.” Darcy v.
State, 488 S.W.3d 325, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (cleaned up). Constitutional
rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, may be
forfeited. Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no
pet.); see Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding
complaint of cruel and unusual punishment under the Texas Constitution was not
preserved). For error to be preserved, the record must show appellant made a timely
request, objection, or motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1). Landon did not object
after his sentence was pronounced, and though he filed two motions for new trial,
neither one mentions the complaint he now raises on appeal.
–2–
Because Landon’s first and second issues are not preserved, we overrule them
and affirm the judgment.
/Barbara Rosenberg/
BARBARA ROSENBERG
JUSTICE, ASSIGNED
DO NOT PUBLISH.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
210311F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
RONNIE LECHARLES LANDON, On Appeal from the 86th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Kaufman County,
Texas
No. 05-21-00311-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 20-40001-86-
F.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Opinion delivered by Justice
Rosenberg. Justices Nowell and
Smith participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 18th day of November 2022.
–4–