In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-05-00145-CR
______________________________
MICHAEL STANLEY SPEIGHTS, Appellant
Â
V.
Â
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
                                             Â
On Appeal from the 71st Judicial District Court
Harrison County, Texas
Trial Court No. 05-0090X
                                                Â
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross
MEMORANDUM OPINION
          Michael Stanley Speights appeals his convictions on eight counts of possession of child pornography. The trial court assessed the maximum punishment on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently with sentences in a companion case in which Speights was convicted on two counts of indecency with a child by sexual conduct, one count of indecency with a child by exposure, and ten counts of promotion or production of child pornography. The total punishment assessed was 250 years.
          The briefs and argument raised in Speights' sole point of error are identical to those raised in Speights' first point of error in Speights v. State, No. 06-05-00144-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise resolve the issue in this appeal. Speights waived review of the issue of excessive and disproportionate punishment. Further, even if error had been preserved, the record does not contain evidence that would allow us to make a proper determination of the issue. Accordingly, we overrule Speights' sole point of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Â
                                                                           Donald R. Ross
                                                                           Justice
Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â September 29, 2005
Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â October 27, 2005
Do Not Publish
ion Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
|
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
In The
Court of Appeals
                       Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Â
                                               ______________________________
Â
                                                            No. 06-10-00229-CR
                                               ______________________________
Â
Â
                                        BOBBY RAPER, II, Appellant
Â
                                                               V.
Â
                                    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Â
Â
                                                                                                 Â
Â
Â
                                        On Appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court
                                                             Delta County, Texas
                                                            Trial Court No. 7080
Â
                                                                                                 Â
Â
Â
Â
                                         Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
                                             Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
                                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
Â
In Delta County, Texas, Bobby Raper, II, was indicted for burglary of a habitation. Raper pled guilty and received a ten-year sentence, which was probated for ten years.[1] Ten months later, the State moved to revoke RaperÂs community supervision, alleging that Raper failed to satisfy six conditions of his community supervision. He pled true to all of the allegations except for failure to complete community service. After a hearing, the trial court revoked RaperÂs community supervision and sentenced him to ten years incarceration.
On appeal, Raper argues in his sole point of error that the sentence imposed by the trial court is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.
           We affirm the trial courtÂs judgment because this issue was not preserved for our review.
Â
           To preserve error for appellate review, a defendant must make a timely request, objection, or motion, and obtain a ruling from the trial court.  Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.  This requirement applies even to assertions that a sentence is cruel and unusual.  Richardson v. State, 328 S.W.3d 61, 72 (Tex. App.ÂFort Worth 2010, pet. refÂd) (citing Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex. App.ÂHouston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. refÂd) (cited by Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 844 n.3 (Tex. App.ÂTexarkana 1999, no pet.)); see also Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Â
           After the trial court revoked his community supervision and sentenced him to ten years incarceration, Raper filed a motion for new trial.[2] In his motion, he argued that the trial court should grant him a new trial because Âthe verdict in this cause is contrary to the law and the evidence, and because Âthe trial court has the discretion to grant a new trial in the interest of justice. The motion failed to argue that the sentence was cruel and unusual or otherwise disproportionate. Therefore, this issue was not preserved for our review,[3] and we affirm the trial courtÂs judgment.
                                                          Â
Â
Â
                                                                                   Jack Carter
                                                                                   Justice
Â
Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â July 5, 2011
Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â July 6, 2011
Â
Do Not Publish
Â
[1]Raper was also assessed a $200.00 fine, $300.00 in attorneyÂs fees, and $343.00 in court costs.
[2]Raper made no other objection to the trial courtÂs judgment.
Â
[3]Even if the contention had been preserved for review, the contention fails. Â Since the sentence is within the statutory range, there is no indication that the severity of the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense, and no evidence establishes the sentenceÂs disproportionality as compared with other sentences in this or other jurisdictions. Â See Mullins v. State, 208 S.W.3d 469, 470 (Tex. App.ÂTexarkana 2006, no pet.).