Ryan Boyette v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00433-CR
RYAN BOYETTE,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 443rd District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 49045CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Ryan Boyette, was convicted of failing to comply with sex offender
registration requirements, a second-degree felony. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
62.102(a), (b)(3). The trial court sentenced Boyette to twelve years in prison.
In two issues on appeal, Boyette contends that his sentence was “grossly
disproportionate to the crime and inappropriate to the offender” in violation of 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. We affirm.
Boyette’s Disproportionate-Sentence Complaints
A disproportionate-sentence claim must be preserved for appellate review. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)
(noting that constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment, may be waived); Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)
(en banc); see also Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2007, pet. ref’d) (“[I]n order to preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence
is grossly disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual punishment, a defendant
must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific
grounds for the ruling desired.”)
At the punishment hearing, Boyette did not assert his disproportionate-sentence
claim. The trial court indicated that it was going to sentence Boyette to twelve years in
prison. And when asked if there was “[a]ny reason, defendant, why the Court should
not impose that sentence at this time,” defense counsel responded, “Defendant is not
aware of any, [Y]our Honor.” Furthermore, Boyette did not raise a disproportionate-
sentence claim in his motion for new trial or otherwise present a post-trial objection to
the imposed sentence. Therefore, we conclude that Boyette did not properly preserve his
complaints on appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Rhoades, 934 S.W.2d at 120; Mercado,
Boyette v. State Page 2
718 S.W.2d at 296; see also Noland, 264 S.W.3d at 151. Accordingly, we overrule both of
Boyette’s issues on appeal.
Conclusion
Having overruled both of Boyette’s issues on appeal, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
STEVE SMITH
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed December 14, 2023
Do not publish
[CR25]
Boyette v. State Page 3