COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-08-037-CR
ANTHONY JAMAL BROWN APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. ONE OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
In one point, appellant Anthony Jamal Brown contends that his sentence
for assault family violence with bodily injury is void and fundamentally defective
because assault family violence is not subject to a repetition enhancement
under the general enhancement statute. Because appellant failed to preserve
his complaint in the trial court, we affirm.
1
… See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant was charged in a single indictment with punching or hitting his
mother—a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year’s confinement
and up to a $4,000 fine, or both—enhanced with a prior 2002 conviction for
assault causing bodily injury to a family member—a third degree felony
punishable by confinement from two to ten years and an up to $10,000 fine.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.21, 12.34 (Vernon 2003), § 22.01(a)(1),
(b)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2008); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 71.003, 71.005
(Vernon 2008) (defining “family” and “household” members). He was also
charged with the same offense as to his sister. The State added a repeat
offender notice, alleging that in 2003, appellant had been convicted of the
felony offense of assault causing bodily injury to a family member. Upon a
finding of true to the repeat offender allegation, the two counts for assault
causing bodily injury to a family member would be enhanced to second degree
felonies. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(a)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2008).
A jury acquitted appellant of assaulting his sister, but it found him guilty
of assaulting his mother. Appellant then pled true to the repetition allegation,
and the jury sentenced him to seven years’ confinement.
In a single point, appellant contends that the repeat offender
enhancement was void because the underlying assault offense had already been
enhanced from a misdemeanor to a third degree felony as specifically provided
2
for in penal code section 22.01(b)(2). According to appellant, because the
assault statute has its own specific enhancement provision, section
22.01(b)(2), further enhancement as a repeat offender under the general
enhancement statute is prohibited. See Phifer v. State, 787 S.W.2d 395,
396–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Rawlings v. State, 602 S.W.2d 268, 270
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980).
To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to
the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific
grounds for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the
request, objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Mosley v. State, 983
S.W.2d 249, 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (op. on reh’g), cert. denied, 526 U.S.
1070 (1999). Further, the trial court must have ruled on the request, objection,
or motion, either expressly or implicitly, or the complaining party must have
objected to the trial court’s refusal to rule. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(2); Mendez
v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
Here, appellant did not move to quash the repeat offender paragraph in
the indictment, nor did he raise his appellate complaint in the trial court.
Accordingly, we conclude and hold that appellant has failed to preserve this
complaint for our review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Harris v. State, 204
S.W.3d 19, 27 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (holding that
3
propriety of enhancement allegation must be raised and ruled upon in trial court
to be subject to appellate review).
We overrule appellant’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and WALKER, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: April 9, 2009
4