COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-08-146-CR
DAMIAN RASHAD JUSTICE APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant Damian Rashad Justice appeals his sentence for aggravated
robbery with a deadly weapon. We affirm.
At a sentencing hearing following appellant’s open plea of guilty,
appellant admitted that during a drug deal he put a pellet gun in the face of a
1
… See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Mr. Thomas Bell and that he subsequently committed a string of three vehicle
burglaries in Euless, Texas.
In a single point on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court abused
its discretion in sentencing him to six years’ confinement instead of placing him
on community supervision.
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.2 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.3 An objection to
a sentence is waived if it is not presented to the trial court. 4 Likewise, an
objection to the term of punishment imposed by a trial court is waived if it is
not objected to or otherwise raised at the trial court level.5
2
… 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, 119 S. Ct.
1466 (1999).
3
… Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(2); Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341
(Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
4
… See Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).
5
… See Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986);
Thompson v. State, 243 S.W.3d 774, 775 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet.
2
Here, after the trial court declared its sentence, the judge asked
appellant’s counsel if there was any legal reason the sentence should not be
pronounced, to which counsel replied, “There’s not, Judge.” Further, following
sentencing, appellant did not file any motion or other objection regarding his
sentence. Under these circumstances, appellant has waived any error
associated with his sentencing.6 Therefore, we overrule appellant’s sole point.7
Having overruled appellant’s only point, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and MCCOY, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: January 22, 2009
ref’d).
6
… See Mercado, 718 S.W.2d at 296.
7
… Even if appellant had preserved error, when the punishment assessed
is within the range prescribed by statute, as it is here, it is generally not subject
to challenge for excessiveness. See Darden v. State, 430 S.W.2d 494, 496
(Tex. Crim. App. 1968); Dale v. State, 170 S.W.3d 797, 799 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 2005, no pet.).
3