COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00356-CR

ROY MICHAEL LIGHTSEY APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Roy Michael Lightsey appeals the sentence from his conviction 

on two counts of possession of a controlled substance, contending in one point 

that the trial court reversibly erred by considering the operation of parole law in 

assessing the sentence. We affirm.

Background Facts

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

One day in March 2010, Fort Worth Police Department Officer Terrance 

Horn was at a convenience store when one of the store’s employees told Officer 

Horn that appellant had placed toothpaste tubes in his pocket. Appellant 

attempted to leave the store with the toothpaste, so Officer Horn detained him, 

ultimately arrested him, and found a candy bottle with thirteen pill capsules in his 

pocket. A chemist tested the pills’ contents and determined that they contained 

.21 grams of cocaine and .67 grams of heroin.

A grand jury indicted appellant for two counts of possession of a controlled 

substance: possession of less than one gram of heroin and less than one gram 

of cocaine.2 Based on the fact that appellant had two prior state-jail-felony 

convictions for possessing controlled substances, the indictment enhanced 

appellant’s potential punishment from a state jail felony range to a third-degree 

felony range.

3

Appellant pled not guilty on both counts, but after deliberating for only a 

few minutes, the jury convicted him of both of them. Appellant elected to have 

the trial court assess his punishment. During the punishment phase, appellant 

 

2See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(2), (3)(D), .115(b) (West 

2010).

3At the time of appellant’s offense, section 12.42(a)(1) of the penal code 

provided, ―If it is shown on the trial of a state jail felony . . . that the defendant has 

previously been finally convicted of two state jail felonies, on conviction the 

defendant shall be punished for a third-degree felony.‖ Act of May 29, 1995, 74th 

Leg., R.S., ch. 318, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 2734, 2735, amended by Act of 

May 25, 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., ch. 834, § 2, 2011 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 2104, 

2104 (West); see Campbell v. State, 49 S.W.3d 874, 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
3

pled true to the enhancement allegations in the indictment. After hearing 

appellant’s girlfriend and sister testify, and after listening to the parties’ closing 

arguments, the judge stated in part, ―[C]onsidering that you might be eligible for 

parole after you serve one-quarter of the sentence, this is what I believe is 

appropriate . . . . [T]he Court hereby assesses your punishment at six years [on 

each count] in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice.‖ Appellant brought this appeal.

Preservation of Error

Appellant argues only that the trial court violated article 37.07 of the code 

of criminal procedure by considering the operation of parole law in assessing his 

sentence.

4

 To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented 

to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific 

grounds for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the 

request, objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Layton v. State, 280 

 

4See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07, § 4 (West Supp. 2010) 

(stating that in the penalty phase of some jury trials, the jury should be instructed 

about various aspects of parole law but should be informed that it may not

consider the manner in which the parole law may be applied to the defendant on 

trial). Appellant states in his brief, ―Although this was not a jury trial the Appellant 

believes it [is] also improper for the Trial Judge to sentence a defendant based 

on . . . the operation of the parole laws.‖ For the reasons stated below, we will 

not expressly decide whether the principles underlying section four of article 

37.07 should affect a trial court’s consideration of parole law in assessing 

punishment. We note, however, that we have held that although juries may not 

consider whether parole or good-conduct time may be awarded to a defendant, 

juries may use their knowledge of parole eligibility to fashion a sentence that 

contemplates the date that a defendant will become eligible for parole. Waters v. 

State, 330 S.W.3d 368, 374 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d).
4

S.W.3d 235, 238–39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Further, the trial court must have 

ruled on the request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly, or the 

complaining party must have objected to the trial court’s refusal to rule. Tex. R. 

App. P. 33.1(a)(2); Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2004). We should not address the merits of an issue that has not been 

preserved for appeal. Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2009).

Most complaints, ―whether constitutional, statutory, or otherwise, are 

forfeited by failure to comply with Rule 33.1(a).‖ Mendez, 138 S.W.3d at 342. 

Rule of appellate procedure 33.1 ―does not apply to rights which are waivable 

only or to absolute systemic requirements, the violation of which may still be 

raised for the first time on appeal.‖ State v. Dunbar, 297 S.W.3d 777, 780 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2009); see Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2009). Systemic requirements—also known as absolute requirements or 

prohibitions—are laws that a trial court has a duty to follow even if the parties 

wish otherwise. Mendez, 138 S.W.3d at 340; see Anderson, 301 S.W.3d at 279. 

Systemic requirements include jurisdiction of the person or subject matter, a 

constitutional requirement that a district court conduct its proceedings at the 

county seat, and a constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Saldano

v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 888–89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Hall v. State, 303 

S.W.3d 336, 341 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. ref’d). ―Waivable only‖ rights 

include the right to the assistance of counsel and the right to trial by jury. 
5

Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 888. Appellant has not contended or provided any reason 

for us to hold that a court’s consideration of parole law during punishment 

violates a systemic requirement, nor does appellant argue that article 37.07

creates a waivable only right for the nonconsideration of parole law by a trial 

court in assessing a sentence.

Moreover, we cannot conceive of any reason why rule 33.1(a) would not 

apply to appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s sentence. Generally, an 

appellant may not complain about his sentence for the first time on appeal. Curry 

v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Laboriel-Guity v. State, 

336 S.W.3d 754, 756 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet. ref’d). In fact, other 

appellate courts that have reviewed this type of issue have applied rule 33.1(a). 

See, e.g., Moreno v. State, 961 S.W.2d 512, 515 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, 

pet. ref’d); see also Nguyen v. State, No. 01-98-00256-CR, 1999 WL 450026, at 

*2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 17, 1999, pet ref’d) (not designated for 

publication) (holding that by failing to object to a judge’s comment, a defendant

forfeited a complaint that the judge erred by ―considering the effect of good 

conduct time and parole release in assessing the appropriate punishment‖).

Moreno is instructive regarding a defendant’s need to preserve an 

objection to the consideration of parole law during punishment. See 961 S.W.2d 

at 515. Moreno argued that reversible error resulted from the jury’s consideration 

of parole law during deliberations. Id. But Moreno neither objected to the jury’s 
6

consideration of parole law nor filed a motion for new trial. Id. Accordingly, the 

appellate court ruled that he failed to preserve the alleged error. Id.

This appeal is similar to the appeal in Moreno. Like Moreno, appellant 

argues that his sentence was based on the trial court’s improper consideration of 

parole law. Although a jury, rather than a judge, assessed punishment in 

Moreno, we conclude that this distinction is not relevant to the issue of whether a 

defendant must object to a punishment assessment that manifests a 

consideration of parole law. Appellant did not object to the trial court’s stated 

consideration of parole law.5 The first time appellant raised this concern was on 

appeal to this court. Thus, we conclude that appellant forfeited that issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Mendez, 138 S.W.3d at 342 (―Except for complaints 

involving systemic (or absolute) requirements, or rights that are waivable only, . . 

. all other complaints . . . are forfeited by failure to comply with Rule 33.1(a).‖) 

(emphasis added).

 

5

In his motion for new trial, appellant contended only that the evidence was 

insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict.
7

Conclusion

Having overruled appellant's sole point, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

TERRIE LIVINGSTON

CHIEF JUSTICE 

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.

WALKER, J. concurs without opinion.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 13, 2011