Rodriguez, Jose v. State

Summarize Case

Related Cases

 

NUMBER 13-00-075-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

__________________________________________________________________

JOSE RODRIGUEZ

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 156th District Court

of Live Oak County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Yañez

Opinion by Chief Justice Seerden

Jose Rodriguez, appellant, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for three years for the offense of possession of marihuana, more than four ounces, less than five pounds, in 1997. The State brought a motion to revoke community supervision in 1999. Appellant pleaded true to the State's motion to revoke. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to two years in the State Jail and a $4,000 fine. Appellant contends that the punishment was disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense, in violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution. We overrule the issue and affirm the conviction.

At the hearing on punishment, Appellant did not object to the sentence. In order to preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have presented the trial court with a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling he desired if those grounds were not apparent from the context. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1). Almost any right, constitutional or statutory, may be waived by failure to make a timely and specific objection. Little v. State, 758 S.W.2d 551, 563 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Jones v. State, 825 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. App.­Corpus Christi 1991, pet. ref'd). As a general rule, an appellant cannot assert error pertaining to his sentence or punishment when he failed to raise such error in the trial court. Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). This court has previously reached the same conclusion when the defendant's contentions were not raised in either a motion for new trial or by objection. Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 479 (Tex. App.­Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd).

Appellant failed to raise this issue in the trial court and has not preserved error. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1).

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.



ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief Justice



Do not publish

.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 29th day of June, 2000.