1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00231-CR

____________________

RAUL FERNANDO BARRON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court 

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-04-04074 CR 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

A jury found Raul Fernando Barron guilty of violating the terms of his civil 

commitment, and following his punishment hearing, the jury also found the 

enhancement paragraphs to be true. The trial court followed the jury’s 

recommendation and gave Barron a life sentence. See Act of May 27, 2007, 80th 

Leg., R.S., ch. 1219, § 8, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 4109, 4110 (amended 2015) 

(current version at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.085 (West Supp. 2015)) 

(Criminal Penalty; Prosecution of Offense); see also Act of May 23, 2011, 82nd 
2

Leg., R.S., ch. 1201, § 8, 2011 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 3197, 3200 (amended 2015) 

(current version at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.082 (West Supp. 2015)) 

(Commitment Requirements). In three issues, Barron challenges the 

constitutionality of section 841.085 of the Sexually Violent Predator Act, claiming 

that punishing him with a life sentence for failing to comply with the commitment 

guidelines constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, that section 841.085 is 

facially vague, and section 841.085, as applied in his case, is too vague to be 

enforced. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In 2013, a grand jury indicted Barron for violating several terms of the trial 

court’s order civilly committing him as a sexually violent predator. See Act of May 

27, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 1219, § 8, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 4109, 4110. The 

indictment includes enhancement counts, which allege Barron had previously 

committed several sequenced felonies. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (West 

Supp. 2015). Given the enhancements, Barron was exposed to a potential life 

sentence if the jury found at least two of the enhancement allegations to be true. 

See id.

Barron filed a motion to quash the indictment on several grounds, but the 

record before us does not show that Barron requested a hearing on his motion or 

that the trial court ruled on his motion. Nevertheless, in 2014, the State re-indicted 

Barron. After he was re-indicted, Barron neither filed a motion seeking to quash 
3

the amended indictment, nor did he file objections to the amended indictment. 

Additionally, Barron did not raise any objections during his trial asserting that 

section 841.085 was unconstitutional. Finally, Barron filed no post-trial motions 

asserting that section 841.085 was unconstitutional.

Before addressing Barron’s issues, and given Barron’s failure to obtain a 

ruling from the trial court on his claims that section 841.085 is unconstitutional, we 

must first address whether Barron preserved his right to appellate review of the 

issues he is raising for the first time in his appeal. Ordinarily, to preserve error for 

appellate review, the complaining party must present a timely and specific 

objection to the trial court and obtain a ruling. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Generally, 

the failure to specifically object to an alleged cruel and unusual sentence in the trial 

court or in a post-trial motion waives any error for purposes of appellate review. 

See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We conclude 

that Barron waived any complaint with respect to his complaint that his 

punishment is cruel and unusual. We overrule issue one.

In his second and third issues, Barron argues that section 841.085 is

unconstitutionally vague on its face and as it has been applied to him. Barron 

raised both of these issues in his motion to quash his original indictment, but the 

record does not show that the trial court ever ruled on that motion and the 
4

indictment was amended. Apparently, the parties chose to treat Barron’s motion to 

quash as moot after he was re-indicted. 

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that both facial and as 

applied constitutional challenges to the validity of statutes must be preserved for 

review on appeal. Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) 

(concluding that “a defendant may not raise for the first time on appeal a facial 

challenge to the constitutionality of a statute”); Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 

496 & n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that a defendant must properly 

preserve a constitutional “as applied” challenge in the trial court for appellate 

review). Thus, because Barron failed to obtain rulings from the trial court on the 

constitutional challenges he presents in his appeal, his complaints have not been 

properly preserved for our review. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. We overrule issues two 

and three.

Because Barron failed to preserve any of the issues he presents in his appeal 

for our review on appeal, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

Submitted on April 6, 2015

Opinion Delivered April 13, 2016

Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.