Document Info

DocketNumber: 02-17-00377-CR

Filed Date: 8/15/2019

Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/17/2019

  •              In the
    Court of Appeals
    Second Appellate District of Texas
    at Fort Worth
    ___________________________
    No. 02-17-00377-CR
    ___________________________
    SARA ANNE WOODY, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS
    On Appeal from the 30th District Court
    Wichita County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 57,635-A
    Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    A jury convicted Sara Anne Woody of three first-degree-felony counts of injury
    to a child with the intent to cause serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury and
    assessed her punishment on each count at 45 years’ imprisonment. See Tex. Penal
    Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(2), (e). In addition, the jury convicted Woody of 13 third-
    degree-felony counts of injury to a child with the intent to cause bodily injury and
    assessed her punishment on each count at ten years’ imprisonment. 1 See 
    id. § 22.04(a)(3),
    (f). The trial court sentenced Woody accordingly and ordered all
    16 sentences to run concurrently. In one point, Woody asserts that the trial court
    erred by denying her motion to quash the indictment. We affirm.
    In Woody’s motion, she sought to quash the three first-degree-felony counts
    because they did not provide sufficient notice. Woody attacked the indictment, not
    the statute on which it was based. Nowhere in her motion did she attack the statute as
    facially void for vagueness.
    But in her brief, she argues that “the statute under which she was charged is
    ‘void for vagueness’” and thus that the trial court erred by overruling her motion. The
    State responds that Woody’s appellate argument does not comport with her complaint
    at trial, so her point should be overruled. We agree. See Thomas v. State, 
    505 S.W.3d 916
    , 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (“If a trial objection does not comport with
    1
    The indictment contained 27 counts. The jury found Woody not guilty on ten
    counts, and the State abandoned one other.
    2
    arguments on appeal, error has not been preserved.”); see also Tex. Code of Crim.
    Proc. art. 1.14; Karenev v. State, 
    281 S.W.3d 428
    , 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“We
    conclude that a defendant may not raise for the first time on appeal a facial challenge
    to the constitutionality of a statute.”); cf. Smith v. State, 
    463 S.W.3d 890
    , 896 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2015) (upholding Karenev but permitting challenges based on a statute
    already held invalid). We overrule Woody’s point.
    Having overruled Woody’s point, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
    /s/ Elizabeth Kerr
    Elizabeth Kerr
    Justice
    Do Not Publish
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    Delivered: August 15, 2019
    3