Opinion issued October 23, 2003
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-02-01085-CR
____________
JOSEPH BERNARD HARRIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 228th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 804675
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Joseph Bernard Harris, pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, and a jury assessed his punishment at confinement for 15 years. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals subsequently remanded the case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing. On remand, appellant elected to have the trial court assess punishment. After a new punishment hearing, the trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement for 15 years. In two points of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in assessing a sentence that violated his constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm.
Facts
In the punishment hearing, Savruddin Virani, the complainant, testified that on February 5, 1999, he was the manager of a Get-N-Go convenience store in Humble, Texas. At approximately 10:00 a.m., appellant and another man, Roederick Walker, burst into the store; appellant was armed with a .12 gauge shotgun, and Walker was armed with a handgun. Walker approached the counter, pointed his gun at the complainant, and demanded money. Meanwhile, appellant stood guard at the front door with his shotgun pointed at the complainant. The complainant complied with Walker’s demands and handed over approximately $700 in cash. Appellant and Walker then fled from the scene of the crime.
Katrina Hypolite, a customer, testified that she saw appellant and Walker enter the convenience store with their weapons. After the robbery, appellant approached her, pointed his shotgun at her, and told her that “[she] didn’t see anything and [she] wasn’t saying anything.”
Humble Police Officer K. Love testified that, while he was on patrol, he heard a police broadcast stating that the robbery suspects had fled to an apartment complex behind the convenience store. Love went to the complex and saw two men matching the suspects’ descriptions entering an apartment. Love and another officer knocked on the door of the apartment. Their knock was answered by an unidentified man, who, when asked where the suspects were, pointed to the back bedroom. The officers found appellant and Walker hiding in the back bathroom, where the officers also recovered the weapons used in the robbery, shotgun shells, ammunition, and $729 in cash.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
In appellant’s two points of error, he argues that his punishment was cruel and unusual because it was not proportional to the offense. He asserts that he should have received a lesser punishment because he pleaded guilty, took full responsibility for his part in the robbery, and had no prior felony convictions.
However, appellant failed to preserve error in the trial court. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling he desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). Without proper preservation, even constitutional error may be waived. Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Draughon v. State, 831 S.W.2d 331, 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Here, there is nothing in the record to indicate that appellant presented his claim to the trial court. He did not object to his punishment at the punishment hearing, nor did he challenge it with a motion for a new trial. Accordingly, appellant waived any error by the trial court in assessing his punishment. See Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d). Moreover, appellant has waived proportionality review by failing to provide evidence of sentences in similar cases for comparison. See McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 315, 316 (5th Cir. 1992); Simmons v. State, 944 S.W.2d 11, 15 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1996, pet. ref’d).
We overrule appellant’s first and second points of error.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Terry Jennings
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Hanks.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).