Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 17, 2004.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-03-00842-CR
____________
PIUS VINTON SMASHED ICE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 230th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 936,914
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Pius Vinton Smashed Ice pleaded guilty to the offense of murder and was sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment. In his only point of error, appellant claims his sentence is disproportionate to the offense for which he was convicted and violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm.
It is well established that failure to raise an Eighth Amendment objection at trial prevents making any such claim on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref=d). Appellant concedes that his sentencing hearing was not recorded by a court reporter. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record that appellant objected at the time of sentencing. Because he has not presented a record for the purposes of his claim, we overrule appellant=s sole point of error.[1]
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
/s/ Leslie Brock Yates
Justice
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed June 17, 2004.
Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Hudson.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] Even if error were preserved, there is no evidence in the record, as required by Solem v. State, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), reflecting sentences imposed on similar offenses in Texas or other jurisdictions. See Jackson v. State, 898 S.W.2d 842, 846 (Tex. App.CTexarkana 1999, no pet.). Moreover, appellant=s sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment, which has been interpreted as prohibiting punishment that is grossly disproportionate to the crime. Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 371 (1910). Punishment is grossly disproportionate only if the sentence is extreme when compared to the gravity of the offense. Caddell v. State, 123 S.W.3d 722, 728 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). Before the trial court sentenced him to life in prison, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of murder and true to an enhancement paragraph in the indictment. In light of the circumstances, we do not believe this sentence to be extreme.