COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00461-CR
LUKE CANTU APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
The trial court adjudicated Appellant Luke Cantu guilty of assault against a
family or household member and sentenced him to five years’ confinement. In a
single, somewhat ambiguous point, Cantu argues that the ―trial court abused its
discretion in revoking [his] probation in proceeding to an adjudication of guilt[y] in
light of overwhelming evidence that [he] had a viable explanation as to why he‖
violated the terms of his community supervision.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
To the extent that Cantu’s point can be construed as challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s decision to adjudicate guilt,
Cantu pleaded true to each of the State’s six allegations and stated during his
testimony, ―I know I messed up.‖ Notwithstanding his testimony, Cantu’s pleas of
true, standing alone, are sufficient to support the trial court’s decision to
adjudicate. See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1979); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1979).
To the extent that Cantu’s point can be construed as challenging the trial
court’s discretion to revoke his community supervision and sentence him to five
years’ confinement instead of continuing, extending, or modifying his community
supervision, Cantu failed to preserve this argument for appellate review because
he did not raise an objection or otherwise challenge his sentence in the trial
court.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296
(Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (―As a general rule, an appellant may not assert error
pertaining to his sentence or punishment where he failed to object or otherwise
raise such error in the trial court.‖); Russell v. State, 341 S.W.3d 526, 527–28
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.) (holding that appellant adjudicated guilty
of offense failed to preserve argument challenging sentence for appellate
2
The State construed Cantu’s argument as raising a cruel-and-unusual
punishment argument. If that is the case, it too is unpreserved. See Rhoades v.
State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that appellant
waived argument involving Article I, Section 13 of the Texas constitution).
2
review); Bernal v. State, No. 07-00-00490-CR, 2003 WL 76865, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo Jan. 8, 2003, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(same).
To the extent that Cantu intended to raise some other argument that is not
addressed by or subsumed within the above analyses, he forfeited that
inadequately briefed point for appellate review. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i)
(requiring brief to contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions
made). We overrule Cantu’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DAUPHINOT, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: March 22, 2012
3
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00461-CR
LUKE CANTU APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
For the reasons stated in my concurrence to the majority opinion in
Laboriel–Guity v. State2 and in my concurring and dissenting opinions to the
majority opinions in Means v. State3 and Kim v. State,4 I dissent from the
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
336 S.W.3d 754, 757–59 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet. ref’d)
(Dauphinot, J., concurring).
3
347 S.W.3d 873, 875–76 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.)
(Dauphinot, J., concurring and dissenting).
majority’s holding that Appellant forfeited any complaint that the trial court
abused its discretion by sentencing him to five years’ confinement.
LEE ANN DAUPHINOT
JUSTICE
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: March 22, 2012
4
283 S.W.3d 473, 476–79 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d)
(Dauphinot, J., concurring and dissenting).
2