IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12-00256-CR
CLAYTON EUGENE TURNER,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 18th District Court
Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court No. F45450
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain, Clayton Eugene Turner pled guilty to the felony
offense of assault-family violence, enhanced and sentenced to 10 years in prison. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(A) (West 2011). His sentence was suspended and
he was placed on community supervision for five years. After Turner committed new
offenses and was unsuccessfully discharged from an intermediate sanction facility, the
trial court revoked Turner’s community supervision and sentenced him to 10 years in
prison. Because Turner’s issues are not preserved for review, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
In two issues, Turner complains that the trial court’s sentence of 10 years violates
the 8th Amendment’s prohibition to cruel and unusual punishments because it was
grossly disproportionate to the crime (issue one) and the 14th Amendment’s due
process provision because the trial court failed to consider the full range of punishment
and assessed a predetermined sentence on revocation (issue two). See U.S. CONST.
amends. VIII & XIV. However, Turner never objected to the sentence he received nor
did he file a motion for new trial on the basis that his sentence violated the 8th or 14th
Amendments. Accordingly, we find that Turner’s complaints were not presented to the
trial court and are not preserved for our review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Wilson v.
State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918
(Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (reviewing court will not consider errors, even of constitutional
magnitude, not called to the trial court's attention). See also Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d
113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that complaint relating to constitutional
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was waived when no objection on
this basis was made in trial court); Hull v. State, 67 S.W.3d 215, 216-218 (Tex. Crim. App.
2002) (same regarding due process complaint). Because Turner’s issues are not
preserved, they are overruled.
Turner v. State Page 2
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed September 12, 2013
Do not publish
[CR25]
Turner v. State Page 3