NO. 07-06-0248-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A DECEMBER 19 , 2006

______________________________ PATRICK W . FRAZIER, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 1 37TH DI STRICT COURT OF LU BBOCK COU NTY; NO. 2005-408497; H ONORABLE CEC IL G. PURY EAR, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Pursuant t o a g u i l t y

p l e a , A p p e l l a n t , P a t r i c kW. Fr azier, w as granted defer red adjudication for aggra vat ed as saul t with a dead ly weap on an d ord ered to co mple te f ive years of c omm unit y supervis ion. The State subs equently filed a motion to pr oceed with adjudication of guilt, and following a hearing, the trial court revoked Appellant’s community1 The Stat e sim ply reu rged t he pr eviou s tes timo ny. 2 supervis ion, adjudicated him guilty of the original off ense, and sentence d him to five years conf inem ent. By a single point of error, Appellant conte nds the trial court erred because it con sider

ed puni shment evid ence ou tside the re cord. We affirm. Atthe hearing on the State’s moti on to proceed, Appel lant pled true to three of the seven alleged v iolationsof his c ommunity supervision. One of the conditions of his community

supervision was that he have no contact wit h the victim “ either direc tly or indi rect ly, or by any othe r means .” Althou gh Appellant admitted to violating this condition, the State presented evidence that he was in contact with the victim. His probation officer testified Appellant was with t he victi m in h er ve hicle wh en he was ar rested for faili ng to iden tify himself during a traff icstop and that the v ictim “bonded hi m out” the foll owing d ay. The officer

also testified thathe receiv ed telephone call s from Appellant on two separate occasions in which Appe llant prov ided the vi ctim’s phone number as the number w here he could be contacted. The St ate also call ed the trooper t hat arrested Ap pellant wh o wa s able to confirm that

Appellant was with t he victi m at the time of his a rrest. Atthe conclusi on of the evidence , the trial court found Appellan tvio lated the conditions of his community supervis ion and adjudicated hi m guilty of the origi nal offense. Neither party presented evidence regarding punishment. 1 Follow ing brief statements from both parties, thetrial court revoked Appellant’s commun ity supervision and sentenced him to ten years confinement. W hen asked whether there was any thing he needed to bring to3

the attention of the court, Appell ant asked the court to r econsider. The court then made the foll owin g sta tement concern ing A ppell ant’sinabi lity to avoid co ntact w ith th e vic tim: “My susp i cion is you violated that one sever al times by

being around her when you knew

that a term and condition of your probation was that you were not tobe around her, pe riod.” The court subsequently reduced Ap pellant’s term of conf inement to five years. By his sole point of error , Appellant contends the court’ s statement duri ng the pronouncement

of the sentence was a v iolation of due pr ocess and that theuse of “mere speculation” during pu nishment v i o l a t e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h tt o c o n fr o n t a t i o n . We disagree. As a prer

equis ite toappell ate re view , a defen dant mus t make atime ly re quest, objection, or motion stati ng the gr ounds with sufficient specific ity to appr ise the trial court of his complaint

. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) . An appellant may not complain of err

or per taining to punishment w here he failed to obj ect or otherw ise bring the error to th e attention of the trial court. Mercado v . State , 718 S.W .2d 291, 296 (Tex.Crim.App . 1986). The purpo se of this req uirement "is togive to the trial court or the oppos ing pa rty th e opportunity

to correct the error or

remove the bas is for the objec tion." Martinez

v. State , 22 S.W.3d 504, 507 (Tex.Cr im.App. 2000). Be cause Appellant failed to appris e the trial court of his complaint , his point pr esents nothing for review . Even ass uming argu endo that error was preserved, the trial court’s belief that Appell ant contacted the victim o n more than4

one occasion is

supported by

ample evidence in the rec ord and w as not an abuse of discretion. See Cardona v. State , 665 S.W .2d 492, 493 (Tex.Crim.App . 1984). Appellant’s point is overruled. Accordingl y, the tri al court’s judgment is a ffirmed. Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish

.