NUMBER 13-13-00077-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
JOSHUA LESLIE MORALES, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 54th District Court
of McLennan County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
By one issue, appellant Joshua Morales challenges his sentence for driving while
intoxicated, enhanced to a third-degree felony by two prior convictions for the same
offense. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.04, 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp. 2011). We
affirm.1
I. BACKGROUND2
Appellant pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated pursuant to a plea
bargain. See id. The terms of the plea bargain called for the court to impose a
sentence of seven years’ imprisonment and a $1,500 fine, probated to the same term of
community supervision. The State filed a motion to revoke alleging three violations of
the terms of appellant’s supervision. Appellant pleaded “true” to the first ground (that he
had consumed alcohol), and pleaded “not true” to the other two grounds. The trial court
revoked appellant’s probation and imposed the original sentence. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
By one issue appellant argues that his sentence of seven years’ imprisonment
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the U.S. Constitution. See U.S. CONST.
Amend. VIII. Appellant argues that although his sentence falls within the statutorily
prescribed range of punishment, his sentence is nevertheless “grossly disproportionate
to the offense committed” because the sentence “is closer to the maximum end” of the
sentencing range and “there was nothing in the record to indicate that the underlying
offense was severe in nature.”
“Even constitutional claims can be waived by failure to object.” Trevino v. State,
174 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d). In order to preserve
1
This case is before this Court on transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco pursuant to a
docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001
(West 2005).
2
Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not
recite the facts and law except as necessary to apprise the parties of the Court’s decision and the
reasons for it. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1, 47.4.
2
all but the most fundamental errors for our review, a party “must present a timely
objection to the trial court, state the specific grounds for the objection, and obtain a
ruling.” Id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, as well as
this Court, have held that this requirement applies to a claim that appellant’s sentence is
so disproportionate to the crime that it becomes cruel and unusual punishment. Kim v.
State, 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d); Trevino, 174
S.W.3d at 927; see also Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App.
1996). In this case, appellant did not make an objection to the trial court. Accordingly,
we hold that appellant failed to preserve this issue.
We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
_______________________
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
1st day of August, 2013.
3