COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00461-CR

LUKE CANTU APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

The trial court adjudicated Appellant Luke Cantu guilty of assault against a 

family or household member and sentenced him to five years’ confinement. In a 

single, somewhat ambiguous point, Cantu argues that the ―trial court abused its 

discretion in revoking [his] probation in proceeding to an adjudication of guilt[y] in 

light of overwhelming evidence that [he] had a viable explanation as to why he‖ 

violated the terms of his community supervision.

 

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

To the extent that Cantu’s point can be construed as challenging the 

sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s decision to adjudicate guilt, 

Cantu pleaded true to each of the State’s six allegations and stated during his 

testimony, ―I know I messed up.‖ Notwithstanding his testimony, Cantu’s pleas of 

true, standing alone, are sufficient to support the trial court’s decision to 

adjudicate. See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1979); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 

1979).

To the extent that Cantu’s point can be construed as challenging the trial 

court’s discretion to revoke his community supervision and sentence him to five 

years’ confinement instead of continuing, extending, or modifying his community 

supervision, Cantu failed to preserve this argument for appellate review because 

he did not raise an objection or otherwise challenge his sentence in the trial 

court.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (―As a general rule, an appellant may not assert error 

pertaining to his sentence or punishment where he failed to object or otherwise 

raise such error in the trial court.‖); Russell v. State, 341 S.W.3d 526, 527–28 

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.) (holding that appellant adjudicated guilty 

of offense failed to preserve argument challenging sentence for appellate 

 

2

The State construed Cantu’s argument as raising a cruel-and-unusual 

punishment argument. If that is the case, it too is unpreserved. See Rhoades v. 

State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that appellant 

waived argument involving Article I, Section 13 of the Texas constitution).
3

review); Bernal v. State, No. 07-00-00490-CR, 2003 WL 76865, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Amarillo Jan. 8, 2003, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) 

(same).

To the extent that Cantu intended to raise some other argument that is not 

addressed by or subsumed within the above analyses, he forfeited that 

inadequately briefed point for appellate review. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) 

(requiring brief to contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions 

made). We overrule Cantu’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DAUPHINOT, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED: March 22, 2012
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00461-CR

LUKE CANTU APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

For the reasons stated in my concurrence to the majority opinion in 

Laboriel–Guity v. State2and in my concurring and dissenting opinions to the 

majority opinions in Means v. State3and Kim v. State,

4

I dissent from the 

 

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

2

336 S.W.3d 754, 757–59 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet. ref’d) 

(Dauphinot, J., concurring).

3

347 S.W.3d 873, 875–76 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.)

(Dauphinot, J., concurring and dissenting).
2

majority’s holding that Appellant forfeited any complaint that the trial court 

abused its discretion by sentencing him to five years’ confinement.

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

JUSTICE

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED: March 22, 2012

 

4

283 S.W.3d 473, 476–79 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d) 

(Dauphinot, J., concurring and dissenting).