NUMBER 13-12-00520-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
ALFREDO PEREZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 24th District Court
of Victoria County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
By one issue, appellant, Alfredo Perez, appeals his conviction for engaging in
organized criminal activity. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 71.02 (West Supp. 2011). We
affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant was indicted and pled guilty to one count of engaging in organized
criminal activity. See id. The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed a 17-year
prison term. This appeal ensued.
II. ANALYSIS
In one issue, appellant argues that the trial court violated his constitutional rights
by imposing an excessive sentence that was disproportionate to the gravity of the
offense.
A. Applicable Law
The Eighth Amendment provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. CONST.
amend. VIII. Even though within the range permitted by law, a sentence may
nonetheless be disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. See Ex parte Chavez,
213 S.W.3d 320, 323–24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
To preserve error for appellate review, the complaining party must present a
timely and specific objection to the trial court, and obtain a ruling. TEX. R. APP. P.
33.1(a). A party’s failure to specifically object to an alleged disproportionate or cruel
and unusual sentence in the trial court or in a post-trial motion waives any error for the
purposes of appellate review. See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1996); Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2007, pet. ref’d) (“[I]n order to preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence
is grossly disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual punishment, a defendant
2
must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific
grounds for the ruling desired.”).
B. Discussion
Having reviewed the record, we note that appellant did not object to an alleged
disproportionate or cruel and unusual sentence in the trial court or in a post-trial motion.
Accordingly, appellant has waived any error for purposes of appellate review. See
Rhoades, 934 S.W.2d at 120; Noland, 264 S.W.3d at 151. Appellant’s issue is
overruled.
III. CONCLUSION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
_______________________
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
14th day of March, 2013.
3
Alfredo Perez v. State
Combined Opinion