NUMBER 13-13-00130-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
DAVID WOOD, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 319th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
Appellant David Wood challenges his conviction after a bench trial for class A
misdemeanor assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1), (b) (West, Westlaw
through 2013 3d C.S.). By two issues, appellant complains of the trial court's
adjudication on the misdemeanor assault charge, which was a lesser-included offense of
the originally indicted offense of felony injury to a child. We affirm.
I. Background1
Appellant was indicted for injury to a child, a first-degree felony, in connection with
his alleged assault of A.W., his son. See id. § 22.04(a), (e) (West, Westlaw through 2013
3d C.S.). Appellant pleaded not guilty, and his case was tried to the bench. After the
close of evidence and argument by counsel, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of
class A misdemeanor assault. See id. § 22.01(a)(1), (b). This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
By two issues on appeal, appellant complains of the trial court's verdict on a lesser-
included offense, arguing that class A misdemeanor assault is not a lesser-included
offense of felony injury to a child and that his due process rights were violated because
he had no notice that the trial court was considering a lesser-included offense.2 Neither
argument was made to the trial court. Because appellant failed to present the complaints
to the trial court he now makes on appeal, he failed to preserve them for our review. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ("A
1Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not
recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons
for it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
2 Appellant also seems to raise a double jeopardy issue, complaining that "appellant cannot be
reprosecuted [for the greater offense of felony injury to a child] . . . , since the court implicitly found appellant
not guilty of the felony charge." We express no opinion on this statement of the law; nothing in the record
indicates that appellant has been "reprosecuted," so his double jeopardy issue is, if cognizable at all,
premature at this stage.
Finally, appellant asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel but cites no authority
and makes no substantive argument in support of this assertion. It is therefore inadequately briefed, and
our review is waived. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i).
2
specific objection is necessary to inform the trial judge of the issue and basis of the
objection, and to allow the judge a chance to rule on the issue at hand."). Appellant's
issues are overruled.
III. Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 30th
day of October, 2014.
3