### NUM BER 13-09- 0010 1-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I – E DI NBURG

OM A R JOSE LOP EZ , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 10 5t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of K leb erg Co un ty , T exas . 

## MEM ORA N D U M OPINION B ef o re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Omar

Jo se L o p e z , app eal s fr om the re v ocat ion of his co mmunity supe rv ision. In on e issue, Lop ez asserts th at the evidence p resen ted to the trial court did not j ust ify

the re v ocat ion and subs eq uent tw o y ear s’ i mpri sonment sentenc e i mposed by the trial court and tha t the rev ocat ion and senten cing v iolate his eighth am end me nt rights.2

See U .S. C ON ST
. am en d VI II

. W e affi r m. I. P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On J uly 21, 2004, Lopez pleaded g uil ty to poss ess ion of a c ontr oll ed s ubst ance, a sta te j ail felony

. See T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481.115 (a )- (b ) (V er non Su pp. 200 9). Unde r t h e p le a agreem ent , the trial court sente nced Lop ez to two y ears’ confine ment i n s tate jai l, su spend ed th e s entenc e, pl aced him on fiv e y ear s’ co mmunity super v is ion , and fined him $10,000

. On J anuar y 28, 2009, the t ri al cour t hea rd a moti on to r ev oke Lopez ’s co mmunity su per v is ion

. The moti on al leg ed th at Lo pez v iolated ei g ht ter ms and co ndi ti ons of his co mmunity su per v is ion

. Lopez pl eaded “ tr ue” to count s o ne, tw o, an d thr ee. Aft e r hear ing ar g uments and re cei v ing ev ide nce, the tr ial co urt found count s o ne, t w o, thr ee, and ei g ht t o be “t ru e” ; r ev oked Lopez ’s co mmunity su per v is ion ; and sent ence d him to tw o y ears’ imp risonm ent , w ith credit f or time serv ed. Lope z did not f ile a moti on for new

tr ial , and thi s a ppeal ens ued.

II. A N AL Y S IS Bef ore w e ad dress Lo pez’s conten tion th at th e tria l c ourt’s actio ns v iolate d his eig hth a mendment r ig hts , w e must fir st addr ess the Stat e’s ar g ument t hat L opez w aiv ed thi s i ss ue by

fail ing to obj ect to the s entenc e as bei ng di spr opor ti onate. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3 .1 ( re qui ri ng a t imel y obj ect ion to pr eser

v e i ss ues for r ev iew ); Di xon v. Stat e , 2 S.W .3d 2 63, 2 65 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998)

. W e ag re e. T o prese rv e a com plaint of dispropo rtiona te s en te nc i ng , th e c r i mi nal de f end ant must mak e a t i me l y , s p e c i fi c o b j e c t i o n t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r r a i s e t h e i s s u e i n a m o t i o n fo r n ewT hi s C our t al so r ecent l y app l i ed t hi s r ul e i n G a y ta n v . S ta te , N o. 13- 08- 00196- C R , 200 9 W L 1 29144 65, at * 1 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Aug. 27, 2009, pet

. re f ’ d) ( m em
. op. , not desi gnat ed f or pub l i cat i on) ( ci t i ng M u l l i n s v . S ta te , 208 S. W

. 3d 469, 470 n. 2 ( T ex. A pp. –T exar k ana 2006, no pet

. ) , and T re v i n o v . S ta te , 17 4 S

. W

. 3d 92 5, 92 7 (T ex
. A pp
. –C orp us C hri s t i 20 05 , pe t

. ref’ d)). 3 trial. Ki m v. Sta te , 28 3 S. W .3 d 47 3, 4 75 ( Tex

. Ap p. –F or t W or th 2 00 9, p et . r ef’ d) ( “ To 1 pr eser v e for appel lat e r ev iew a c omplai nt t hat a se ntenc e i s g ross ly di spr opor ti onate,
cons ti t u t i n g c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h me n t , a d e fe n d a n t mu s t p r e s e n t t o t h e t r i a l c o ur t a time ly request, ob jection , or mot ion sta ting the spe cif ic g ro u n d s f or the ruling desired. ”); Nol and v . St ate , 264 S.W .3d 144 , 151 -52, ( T ex. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 07, pet. ref ’d); Qui ntana v. Stat e , 777 S.W .2d 474, 479 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1989, p e t. ref ’d) (holdin g def en d a n t w aived cruel and unu sual pu nishm ent argumen t by f ailing to object);
see a lso Guz

m an v . St ate , N o
. 1 3 -0 9 -0 0 1 3 2 -C R, 2 0 1 0 W L 2 0 1 1 5 2 4 , a t *1 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti M ay 20, 2010, no pet . h. ) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) (h old ing that fail ur e to obj ect to dis pr opor ti onate sent enci ng or

to ra is e the i ssue i n a moti on for new

tr ial w aiv es the i ss ue on appeal ); Fi guer oa v. Stat e , No. 13-0 8-00 115 -CR, 2009 W L 34898 42, a t * 1 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti Oct

. 29, 2009, pet. re f’d) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( same) ; Val adez v. Sta te , N o
. 1 3
- 0 9
- 0 0 0 6 2
- C R , 2 0 0 9 WL 2914260, at *4 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or p u s Ch ris ti Aug . 31, 2009, no p et.) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( same)

. Her e, Lo pez w as adj udg ed g uil ty of poss ess ion of a c ontr oll ed s ubst ance, see T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481.115 (a )- (b ), and w as sent enced w it hin the pr esc ri bed puni shment r ang e. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 12. 35 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009) ( pr ov idi ng puni shment of not mor e tha n tw o y ear s and not less than 180 day s for co nv ic ti on of st ate jai l felony ); Tr

evi no v . St ate , 174 S.W .3d 925, 928 n.4 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti , pet . r ef’d) (“ A s entenc e out si de th e max imum or mini mum ra ng e of puni shment i s u nauthor iz ed by4

law and ther efore i ll eg al. ”)

. “B ecaus e the s e n te n ce impos ed i s w it hin the puni shment
ra ng e and i s n o t ill e g al, w e c oncl ude t hat t he r ig hts [Lop ez ] as ser ts for th e fir st ti me on app eal are n ot so f und am ent al as to ha v e reliev ed him o f t he nece ssity

o f a time ly , specif ic trial objectio n.” Tr

evi no 17 4 S. W .3 d at 92 7 -2 8 (cit in g Bl ue v . St ate , 41 S.W .3d 1 29, 1 31 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ( en banc ))

. Therefor e, be caus e Lopez fail ed to obj ect to the t ri al
cour t’ s s e n te n ce , f ail ed to r ais e the i ss ue i n a mot ion for n ew tr ial , and w as sent enced
w ithin th e stat uto rily

provi ded p unish me nt range, w e hold t hat h e has f ailed to preserve his compl ain t for our

r ev iew

. Id. ; see a lso Ga yt a n v. Sta te , N o
. 1 3
- 0 8
- 0 0 1 9 6
- C R , 2 0 0 9 WL 2914465, at *1 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Aug. 2 7 , 200 9, pe t. re f’d) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. W e ov er ru le Lopez ’s appel lat e i ss ue. III
. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led Lopez ’s appel lat e i ss ue, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________

_________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 29th day of June, 2010.