NUMBER 13-12-00395-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
ERNESTO JAVIER RAMIREZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 156th District Court
of Bee County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza
By a single issue, appellant, Ernesto Javier Ramirez, contends the trial court
abused its discretion in sentencing him to two years’ incarceration “because that
punishment violates the objectives of the system of prohibitions, penalties, and
correctional measures in the Penal Code.” We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 27, 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to
possession with intent to deliver a Penalty Group 1 controlled substance, specifically,
less than one gram of cocaine, a state jail felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.
§§ 481.101(3)(D), 481.112(b) (West 2010). The trial court imposed a $1,000 fine,
assessed restitution in the amount of $140, deferred adjudication, and placed appellant
on community supervision for five years. The State filed an amended motion to revoke
appellant’s community supervision on May 11, 2012, alleging numerous violations of the
conditions of appellant’s community supervision. At a hearing on May 22, 2012,
appellant pleaded “true” to nine of the State’s allegations and “not true” to five of the
State’s allegations. The trial court found three of the allegations “not true” and the
remaining allegations “true.” The trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision,
adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to two years’ confinement in state jail.
II. DISCUSSION
By a single issue, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
sentencing him to two years’ confinement because “[i]ncarcerating [him] is merely
punitive” and does not further the penal code’s goal of rehabilitation. The State
responds that appellant failed to preserve any issue for review because he did not
object to his sentence in the trial court. We agree with the State.
Appellant made no objection to his sentence either at the time of sentencing or in
any post-trial motion. To preserve error for appellate review, a party must present a
timely objection to the trial court, state the specific grounds for the objection, and obtain
a ruling. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). By failing to specifically object in the trial court or in a
post-trial motion, appellant has waived any error for our review. See 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 must present to the trial court a
2
timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired.”);
Trevino v. State, 174 S.W.3d 925, 927–28 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref'd);
(“Because the sentence imposed is within the punishment range and is not illegal, we
conclude that the rights [appellant] asserts for the first time on appeal are not so
fundamental as to have relieved him of the necessity of a timely, specific trial
objection.”); see also Ray v. State, No. 13-11-00466-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5600,
at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 12, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (“To preserve a complaint of disproportionate sentencing, the criminal
defendant must make a timely, specific objection to the trial court or raise the issue in a
motion for new trial.”).
Moreover, even had appellant preserved error, Texas courts have held that as
long as the punishment assessed falls within the statutory range, the punishment is not
excessive. See Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Trevino,
174 S.W.3d at 928. Here, appellant’s two-year sentence falls within the punishment
range for state jail felonies, see TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.35 (West Supp. 2011), and
is therefore not excessive. See Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928.
III. CONCLUSION
We overrule appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
DORI CONTRERAS GARZA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered and filed the
7th day of March, 2013.
3