IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00338-CR

MATTHEW RAMOS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 443rd District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 47979CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Matthew Ramos, pled guilty to one count of online solicitation of a 

minor, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 33.021(b), (f). After a 

punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced Ramos to ten years in prison. On appeal, 

Ramos asserts that his sentence is grossly disproportionate in violation of the United 

States and Texas Constitutions, and that the judgment should be modified to accurately 

reflect that Ramos did not waive his right to appeal his sentence. See U.S. CONST. amend. 
Ramos v. State Page 2

VIII; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13; TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). We modify the judgment and affirm 

as modified.

RAMOS’S GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE SENTENCE COMPLAINTS 

In his first and second issues on appeal, Ramos contends that his sentence was 

“grossly disproportionate to the crimes and inappropriate to the offender” in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 13 of the 

Texas Constitution. See U.S. CONST. amend. VIII; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13.

A disproportionate-sentence claim must be preserved for appellate review. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) 

(noting that constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual 

punishment, may be waived); see also Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d) (“[I]n order to preserve for appellate review a 

complaint that a sentence is grossly disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual 

punishment, a defendant must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or 

motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired.”).

At the punishment hearing, Ramos did not assert his disproportionate-sentence 

claim. When asked by the trial court if there was any legal reason why sentence should 

not be imposed, counsel stated, “No legal reason, Your Honor.” Furthermore, Ramos did 

not raise a disproportionate-sentence claim in a motion for new trial or otherwise present 

a post-trial objection to the imposed sentence. Therefore, we conclude that Ramos did 

not properly preserve his disproportionate-sentence complaints for review. See TEX. R.
Ramos v. State Page 3

APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Rhoades, 934 S.W.2d at 120; see also Noland, 264 S.W.3d at 151. 

Accordingly, we overrule Ramos’s first and second issues on appeal.

MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT

In his third issue on appeal, Ramos asserts that the judgment should be reformed 

to reflect that he did not waive his right to appeal his sentence and that permission to 

appeal the sentence was granted by the trial court. The State agrees. At Ramos’s plea

hearing, the trial court explained, “...the plea part you cannot appeal, but you can appeal 

when we do our sentencing, okay?” Further, the trial court completed two certifications 

of the defendant’s right to appeal. The certification signed July 18, 2023 indicates that 

Ramos was granted permission to appeal “except for the plea of guilty,” and the 

certification signed September 21, 2023 grants Ramos the right to appeal “for sentencing 

only.”

An appellate court has the authority to reform a judgment to speak the truth when 

it has the information to do so. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); see also Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 

26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we modify the judgment to reflect that 

Ramos did not waive his right to appeal his sentence and that the trial court granted 

Ramos permission to appeal his sentence.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we modify the judgment to reflect that Ramos did not 

waive his right to appeal his sentence and that the trial court granted Ramos permission 

to appeal his sentence, and we affirm the judgment as modified.
Ramos v. State Page 4

STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Affirmed as modified

Opinion delivered and filed July 25, 2024

[CR25]