NUMBER 13-17-00481-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

ADRIAN CAMPOS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 319th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

By one issue, appellant Adrian Campos argues that the trial court’s sentence of 

ten years is a cruel and unusual punishment for the offense of aggravated assault. We 

affirm.
2

I. BACKGROUND

Campos was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a felony of the 

second degree. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West, Westlaw through 

2017 1st C.S.). Included in the indictment was an enhancement paragraph alleging that 

Campos had previously been finally convicted of a felony offense. See id. § 12.42(b) 

(West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Campos pleaded guilty as charged pursuant to 

a plea agreement. The trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed Campos 

on community supervision for a period of five years.

In December of 2016, the State filed a motion to revoke Campos’s community 

supervision. That motion was later dismissed without a hearing. In June of 2017, the 

State filed a second motion to revoke Campos’s community supervision. The motion 

alleged that Campos had committed multiple violations of the terms of his community 

supervision: twice committing the offense of public intoxication in May of 2017; leaving 

the county without permission; failing to pay certain fees; and failing to report his public 

intoxication arrests to the community supervision department.

At the hearing on the State’s motion, the trial court heard testimony from Campos, 

his probation officer, and the two officers who arrested him for public intoxication on May 

22 and 24, respectively. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court found the 

State’s allegations true and revoked Campos’s community supervision. The court 

enhanced punishment to a first-degree felony and sentenced Campos to ten years’ 

confinement. See id. Campos did not object that this sentence was excessive, 
3

disproportionate, or in any way cruel or unusual, and he did not subsequently file a motion 

for new trial. Campos appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

By his sole issue, Campos argues that his sentence is cruel and unusual. He 

argues that the trial court revoked his community supervision based on mere technical 

violations and that his ten-year sentence is excessive and grossly disproportionate 

relative to these minor violations.

A. Standard of Review

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “[e]xcessive 

bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment 

inflicted.” U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. A punishment within the limits prescribed by a valid 

statute “is not, per se, prohibited as cruel, unusual, or excessive.” Trevino v. State, 174 

S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d). When a sentence is within 

the prescribed statutory range set down by the legislature, sentencing authorities have 

nearly unfettered discretion to impose any punishment within that range. Ex parte 

Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

B. Preservation

To preserve error for appellate review, a timely and specific objection is required. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235, 238–39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 

When the sentence imposed is within the punishment range and not illegal, the failure to 

specifically object in open court or in a post-trial motion waives any error on appeal. 

Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (en banc); Noland v. 
4

State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d); Trevino, 

174 S.W.3d at 927–28.

Here, Campos’s punishment falls within the range of punishment for a seconddegree felony that is punished as a first-degree felony pursuant to an enhancement. See 

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.32(a); 12.42(b) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). 

Campos concedes that he failed to present his Eighth Amendment argument to the trial 

court in any form. Thus, by failing to object to the trial court’s sentence below, Campos 

has forfeited his complaint on appeal. See Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928.

We overrule Campos’s sole issue on appeal.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

31st day of August, 2018.