NUMBER 13-17-00481-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
ADRIAN CAMPOS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 319th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
By one issue, appellant Adrian Campos argues that the trial court’s sentence of
ten years is a cruel and unusual punishment for the offense of aggravated assault. We
affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Campos was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a felony of the
second degree. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West, Westlaw through
2017 1st C.S.). Included in the indictment was an enhancement paragraph alleging that
Campos had previously been finally convicted of a felony offense. See id. § 12.42(b)
(West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Campos pleaded guilty as charged pursuant to
a plea agreement. The trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed Campos
on community supervision for a period of five years.
In December of 2016, the State filed a motion to revoke Campos’s community
supervision. That motion was later dismissed without a hearing. In June of 2017, the
State filed a second motion to revoke Campos’s community supervision. The motion
alleged that Campos had committed multiple violations of the terms of his community
supervision: twice committing the offense of public intoxication in May of 2017; leaving
the county without permission; failing to pay certain fees; and failing to report his public
intoxication arrests to the community supervision department.
At the hearing on the State’s motion, the trial court heard testimony from Campos,
his probation officer, and the two officers who arrested him for public intoxication on May
22 and 24, respectively. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court found the
State’s allegations true and revoked Campos’s community supervision. The court
enhanced punishment to a first-degree felony and sentenced Campos to ten years’
confinement. See id. Campos did not object that this sentence was excessive,
2
disproportionate, or in any way cruel or unusual, and he did not subsequently file a motion
for new trial. Campos appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
By his sole issue, Campos argues that his sentence is cruel and unusual. He
argues that the trial court revoked his community supervision based on mere technical
violations and that his ten-year sentence is excessive and grossly disproportionate
relative to these minor violations.
A. Standard of Review
The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “[e]xcessive
bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment
inflicted.” U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. A punishment within the limits prescribed by a valid
statute “is not, per se, prohibited as cruel, unusual, or excessive.” Trevino v. State, 174
S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d). When a sentence is within
the prescribed statutory range set down by the legislature, sentencing authorities have
nearly unfettered discretion to impose any punishment within that range. Ex parte
Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
B. Preservation
To preserve error for appellate review, a timely and specific objection is required.
TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235, 238–39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
When the sentence imposed is within the punishment range and not illegal, the failure to
specifically object in open court or in a post-trial motion waives any error on appeal.
Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (en banc); Noland v.
3
State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d); Trevino,
174 S.W.3d at 927–28.
Here, Campos’s punishment falls within the range of punishment for a second-
degree felony that is punished as a first-degree felony pursuant to an enhancement. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.32(a); 12.42(b) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).
Campos concedes that he failed to present his Eighth Amendment argument to the trial
court in any form. Thus, by failing to object to the trial court’s sentence below, Campos
has forfeited his complaint on appeal. See Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928.
We overrule Campos’s sole issue on appeal.
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
31st day of August, 2018.
4