COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00481-CR

Prudencio Mandez Ortiz

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (0585532D)

January 31, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This 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.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00481-CR

PRUDENCIO MANDEZ ORTIZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

I. Introduction and Background

Appellant Prudencio Mandez Ortiz appeals the trial court’s judgment 

adjudicating his 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. Penal 

Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1), (d) (West 2011). The applicable punishment range is 

two to twenty years’ confinement. See id. § 12.33(a) (West 2011). In his sole 

 

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

issue, Appellant contends that his fifteen-year sentence is grossly 

disproportionate to the facts 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 because 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 complain 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 motion 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 court). 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.3d 
3

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