Appel lan t’ s Not ic e of A ppeal ind ic ates that appel lan t i s a ppeal ing “ the rev ocat ion 1 of comm unity su pervisi on, ju dgme nt[, ] and se nte nce of the Cou rt.” H owev er, app ellant ’s is sues on a ppeal ch all eng e onl y the tr ial co urt’ s s entenc e. NO. 07-08 -009 7-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A JAN UA RY

9, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ JON ERIC TURNER, APPE LLA NT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; TH NO. 37, 376 -E; HON. ABE LOP EZ, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL, HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. Memorandum Opinion App e l l a n t , J o n E r i cT u r n e r , a p p e a l s t h e s e n t e n c e t h e t r i a l c o u rta s s e s s e d a fter adj udi cat ing appel lan t g uil ty of the o ffense of ag g ra v ated ass aul t w it h a deadl y weapon. 1 The tr ial co urt s entenc ed appe ll ant t o a t er m of 20 y ears inc arcerati on in the I nst it uti onal2

Di v is ion of the Texas Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. By four is sues , app ell ant c hal len g es th e tr i al c ou rt’ s s en te nc e. W e affi r m. Backg ro und In A ug ustof 1997, appel lan t ple aded g uil ty to the c harg e of ag g ra v ated ass aul t w it h a deadl y weapon. In acc ordance w it h a p lea ag re ement, the t ria l cour t defer re d a deter minat ion of g uil t for a per iod of

f iv e y ears. Appell ant w as admoni shed that, i f he w as conv icted o f the offense for w hic h he ple d g uil ty , he coul d be puni shed w it h i mpri sonment for a per iod of between two y ears a nd 20 y ears. In Jul y of 1999, the State file d a mot ion to proc eed w it h adjudi cat ion alle g ing that appell ant had v iol ated the ter ms of hi s c ommunity super v is ion bycommitti ng another ag g ra v ated ass aul t w it h a d eadl y weapon. Bec ause the Stat e c oul d notl ocat e appel lan t, the moti on to proceed w it h adj udi cat ion was not h eard at that ti me. I n J uly

of 2002, the State file d an amended motion to proc eed w it h adj udi cat ion that added c lai ms t hat a ppel lan t had v iol ated the t er ms of hi s c ommunit y su per v is ion by fa ili n g to rep o rtto h is co m m u n ity su p e rvisio n o f f ice r e a ch m o n th f ro m J u ly 1 9 9 9 th ro u gh Ju n e 20 0 2 an d fa ili n g to p a y m o n th ly c o m m u n ity su p e rvisio n fe e s f ro m J u ly 1 9 9 9 th ro u gh Jul y 2002. I n M ay

of 2007, appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion off ic er

recei v ed i nformati on that appel lan t was in the Cook County Jail in Chi cag o, Ill ino is
. In Jul y of 2007, appel lan t w as extradi ted t o Potter C ounty w here he w as held until the Stat e’smoti on to proceed w it h adj udi cat ion was heard i n D ecember of 2007. During the adju dicatio n he aring, appe llantc ro s s -ex am ined each of the St ate ’s w it ness es and pres ented ev ide nce on his ow n behalf. Appel lan t, hims elf, test ified that he3

c o m m it t e d t h e o ri gi n a l a s s a u lt , b u tt h a th e d id so in se lf-d e fe n s e . Du ri n g t h is t e s t im o n y, how ev er , t he tr ial co urt i nter ru pted and s tated thatthere was n o s ense in g oin g i nto t he origi nal assa ult since ap p e ll a n th ad a lready pleade d guilty to tha t of

fense . Appe llant’s couns el sai d, “O kay” and proceed ed to t est imony reg ardin g the ass aul t al leg ed as v iol ati ng the t er ms of appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion
. At the conc lus ion of t he hear ing , the t ri al court foun d tha t app ellantv iolate d the cond itions of his comm unity supervisi on, foun d him guilty of agg rav ate d assa ult w ith a de adly weap on, and sente nced him to 20 years incarcerat ion. At no time during this he aring did app ellantobjectto the trial court’s fa ilure to ad mit or consid er any evidence of fered in mitigation of sent ence nor did a ppe llant object to t he tr ial co urt’ s i mposi ti on of sen tenc e. Fur ther , appel lan t conc edes in hisappel lat e br ief that no moti on for new

tr ial was filed
. Preser v ati on of Er ro r in Senten ci ng Al l four of appel lan t’ s i ss ues in thi s a ppeal r e la te t o the tr ial co urt’ s fai lure to cons ide r ev ide nce in mit ig ati on of sentenc e before sentenc ing appell ant to th e max imum sent ence for th e offense of ag g ra v ated ass aul t w it h a deadl y w eapon. Appell ant c ontends tha t the trial court’s refu sal to hear this evidence resu lted in a d ispropo rtiona te sen ten ce in v iol ati on of the Un it ed St ates and Tex as Con sti tuti ons. The S tate re spond s t hat appel lan t fail ed to preser v e anyerror

i n the tr ial co urt’ s s entenc ing and, ev en i f pres er v ed, the t ri al cour

t d id not er r becau se appel lan t was afforded t he oppo rt uni ty to present ev ide nce in miti g ati on of sen tenc e.4

As noted abov e, ap pel lan t rais ed no obj ect ion to the t ri al cour t’ s s entenc ing , ei ther at t he ti me of sent enci ng or in anypost- tr ial m oti on, on anygrounds . Nei ther di d appel lan t ever lodge an obje ction to the trial court’s alleged ref usal to adm it or conside r ev iden ce in miti g ati on of sen tenc ing
. To preser v e er ro r for appe ll ate rev iew , a par ty mus t p re senta time ly object ion to the trial court, s t a t e t h e specif ic g roun ds for the o bjectio n, an d ob tain a r uli ng . T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1( a) ; Trev ino v . St ate, 174 S. W .3d 9 25, 9 27 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us Christi 2005 , pet . ref’d). Even claims of co nstitu tiona l violations can b e w aived bya failure t o o bj e ct
. T re v ino , 174 S
. W
. 3 d a t9 2 7
. " A l l a p a rty h a s t o d o t o a v o i d t h e fo r fe i t u re o f a com plainton ap pea l is to let th e trial judge know wh a th e w ant s, w hy he th inks himse lf enti tl ed to i t, and t o do so cl ear ly enoug h for the j udg e to understa nd him at a ti me w hen the t ri al cour

t i s i n a p ro per

pos it ion to do s o m e th in g a b o u t i t." Lanksto n v . St ate, 827 S.W .2d 9 0 7 , 909 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992)( en banc ). Se e Sol is v . St ate, 945 S. W .2d 3 00, 301 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [1 Dist.] 199 7, pet. ref ’d) (failure to obje ct to an alleged grossly st d i s p ro p o rt i o n a t e s e n t e n c e fo r fe i t s a n y e r ro r ) ; Q u i n t a n a v . S t a t e , 7 7 7 S
. W
. 2 d 4 7 4 , 479 (Tex .A p p .– CorpusC hr is ti 1989, pet. ref’d)( failu re to obj ectto sent ence as cr uel and unusu al puni shmentforfeit s e rror ). H ow ev er , in cer tai n rare c ircums tanc es, er ro r re lat ing to s entenc ing foll ow ing an a dju dic ati on of gui ltcan be p re ser v ed by the is sue bei ng rais ed in a ti mely

fil ed moti on for new

tr ial
. See P earson v . St ate, 994 S. W .2d 1 76, 1 79 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)
. Howev er , i n the presentca se, appel lan t c onced es that he di d not f ile a mo tion for new trial.An ille gal se n te n ce is a se n te n ce th a t is ou ts id e of th e m a xim u m or m in im u m ran ge 2 of pun ishm entauth oriz ed b y law and may be raised for t he f irst tim e on a ppe al. See Miz ell v . St ate, 119 S. W .3d 8 04, 806 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2003)
. Appel lan t doe s n ot c ontend that the sent ence impo sed b y

the trial court in th is case w as illegal.

5 Beca use th e sen ten ce imp osed in t h e p resen t case is w ithin th e stat uto ry pun ishm entrange and is not illeg al, the con s t it u t io n a l ri ghts thatapp ellantclaims w ere 2 vio la t e d b y t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s d is p ro p o rt io n a t e se n t e n c e a re n o t s o f u n d a m e n t a l a s t o h a ve re li ev ed hi m of

t h e necess ity

of a ti mely , s peci fic t ri al obj ect ion
. Trev ino , 174 S.W .3d a t 927- 28. Thus, by

fail ing to obj ectto the tr ial court ’sfail ure to all ow ev ide nce in miti g ati on of se nte nce o r

t o th e s en te nc e i mp os ed b y t he t r i al c ou rt, a pp el l an t ha s for fei te d his compl ain t on appeal
. Id. at 92 8. Con cl usi on Be ca u se ap p e lla n t fa ile d to p re se rve an y e rro r re la ti n g to th e tr ia l co u rt ’s s e n te n cin g, hisappel lat e i ss ues are notbefore us. W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.