## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02
- 11
- 00481
- CR

Prudencio Mandez Ortiz

v.

The State of Texas § § § § § From t he 371st District Court

o f Tarrant County ( 0585532D ) January 31, 2013
Per Curiam (nfp)


### JUDGMENT

T his court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.

S ECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02
- 11
- 00481
- CR

PRUDENCIO MANDEZ ORT IZ APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

----------
I. I ntroduction and Background Appellant Prudencio Mandez Ortiz appeals the trial court ’ s judgment adjudicating hi s guilt and sentencing him to fifteen years in prison for the offense of indecency with a child by contact, a second

- degree felony

. See Tex. Pen al Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1), (d) (West 20 11 ). The applicable punishment range is two to twenty years’ confinement. See id. § 12.33(a) (West 20 11 ). In his sole

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

issue, Appellant contends that his fifteen

- year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the fac ts of the probationary violations and violates constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment

. We affirm.
II. Discussion Appellant contends that his sentence constitutes an abuse of the trial
court’s discretion be cause it is excessive given the facts surrounding his allegedly technical violations of the terms of his community supervision, his advanced age, and his medical conditions. Appellant did not, however, object to his sentence when it was imposed or complai n about the length of his sentence
in a motion for new trial. See Means v. State , 347 S.W.3d 873, 874 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2011, no pet.) (holding complaint not preserved on appeal because appellant did not object to sentence when imposed or present moti on for new trial raising that argument to trial court); Kim v. State , 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d) (holding failure to object to sentence at time of imposition or complain of sentence in motion for new trial does not preserve complaint for appellate review); Washington v. State , 271 S.W.3d 755, 756 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (holding disproportionate sentence complaint not preserved because appellant did not present his motion for new

trial to trial cou rt). Because Appellant did not object to his sentence when it was imposed or file and present a motion for new trial to the trial court raising his contention, he failed to preserve his sentencing complaint for appellate review.
See Tex. R. App. P. 21.6, 33.1(a); Means , 347 S.W.3d at 874; Kim , 283 S.W.3d3

at 475; Washington , 271 S.W.3d at 756. We therefore overrule Appellant’s sole

issue. See Kim , 283 S.W.3d at 475

– 76.
III. Conclusion Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )

DELIVERED: January 31, 2013