### NUM BERS 13-0 8-00 196- CR 13-08- 0019 7-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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
TA NYA JE A N GA

YT A N, A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 05t h Dist rict C ou rt o f K leb erg Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Tany a J ean G ay tan, appeal s fr om the re v ocat ion of her com m u nit y super v is ion , adj udi cat ion of

g uil t, and from the i mposi ti on of con cur re nt s entenc es of eig ht y ea r s ’ i mp r i s on me nt

. G ayta n r ai s es o ne i s s ue o n ap pe al

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On Nove m b e r 3 , 200 0, Ga y tan w as indicte d on tw o cou nts of agg rav ate d assa ultT he t r i al cour t assi gned cause num ber 00- C R F-5 82 t o t he aggr av at ed assaul t def er r ed a dj udi cat i on 1 and com m uni t y supe r v i si on ca se, and cause num ber 01- C R F-3 04 t o t he “ pr ohi bi t ed su bst ance i n cor r ect i onal f aci l i t y ” suspe nded sent ence and com m uni t y super v i si on case. T hi s C our t has assi gned cause num ber 01- C R F-3 04 a ppel l at e cause num ber 13- 08- 00197
- C R , and cause num ber 00- C R F-5 82 h as be en a ssi gned a p p e l l a te c a u s e n u m b e r 1 3 -0 8 -0 0 1 9 6 -C R

. 2 w i t h a d e a d l y w e a p on. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.02 (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. On Janua ry 3, 2001, Gay tan p lea ded g uil ty

. The tr ial cour t deferr ed adj udi cat ion and pla ced Gaytan on comm unity supervisi on f or ten years. 1 On A ug ust23, 2001, Gay tan w as charg ed w it h “p ro hib it ed subs tanc e in cor re cti onal f acility .” See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 38.11 (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. On S e p te m b e r 12, 2001, she ple aded g uil ty

. The tr ial co urt s entenc ed her to te n ye a rs ’ confine ment i n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. O n M ar ch 4, 20 02, t he tr ial co urt s uspen ded t he sent ence and placed Gaytan on co mm unity supervisi on f or ten years. O n F e b r u a r

y 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 , p u r s u a n tt o t h e S t a t e ’ s m o t i o n s t o r e v o k e c o mm u nit y super v is ion and to adj udi cat e g uil t, the tr ial cour t hel d a hear ing to cons ide r the a ll eg ati ons mad e i n the moti ons. G ay tan a nsw er ed “ tr ue” to si x teen out o f tw enty of the a ll eg ati ons pr esent ed bythe Stat e in suppor t of its moti ons. After

ac cept ing her

ans w er s o f “tr ue,” the tr ial co urt r ev oked communi ty super v is ion , impos ed sent ences of eig ht y ears’ co nfinement
on eac h c ause number , and or der ed th e s entenc es to r un c oncur re ntl y . On a p p e al, Gaytan a rg ues that thes e s entenc es w er e di spropor ti onate to t he off enses al leg ed i n v iol ati on of the Ei g hth a nd F our teent h Amendment s t o the U nit ed Stat es Con sti tuti on. See U .S. C ON ST . amends . VI II, X IV. II. D I S CUS S I ON The Stat e arg ues that Gay tan fai led to pr oper ly pr eser v e her co mplaint for our
re v iew

. W e ag re e.3

“To p re ser

v e an er ro r for appell ate rev iew , a par ty m ustpr esenta t imel y

obj ect ion to th e trial court, sta te th e spe cif ic g roun ds for the o bjectio n, an d ob tain a ruling.” Tr evi no
v. State , 174 S.W .3d 925, 927 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, pet. r ef’d)

. Con sti tuti onal cl aims m ay

be w aiv ed w hen a par

ty f ail s to obj ect

. Id. (cit in g Sm it h v. State , 721 S.W .2d 844, 855 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1986) ); see Sol is v. Sta te , 9 4 5 S

. W

. 2 d 3 0 0 , 3 0 1 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 7, pe t. re f ’d ) (h old ing w aiv er w her e par

ty fail ed to obj ectto d isp ro p o rt io n a lit y of

se n tenc e) ; Q u i

n t a n a v . St ate , 777 S.W .2d 4 74, 4 79 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1989, pet. r ef’d) ( hol din g defendant w aiv ed c ru el and unu sual puni shment a rg ument by fail ing to obj ect ). “[A] part y is not req uired to m ake a c ontempor aneous obj ect ion to the impos it ion of

an il leg al sent ence. Thus, an appell ate cour t t hat o ther

w is e has j ur is dic ti on
over a criminal conv iction may alw ays not ice and correct an illegal senten ce.” Tr evi no , 174 S.W .3d a t 928 n.4 ( “A

se ntenc e out si de th e max imum or min imum rang e of puni shment is unaut hor iz ed by

l aw and ther efore i ll eg a l. ”) (in ter nal ci tati ons omit ted)

. Addi ti onal ly , a cl aim of dis pr opor

ti onate sent enci ng m a y b e rai sed in a moti on for new tr ial

. Mullins v. State , 208 S.W .3d 4 69, 4 70 n. 2 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2006, no pet .) ; see a lso Kingv. State , N o. 13 -0 4- 446- CR , 200 5 W L 2470525, at *6 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, pet. ref ’d) (mem . op. , not designate d for pub lication). In t h e p re sentca se, Gaytan d id not o bje ct to t he tr ial co urt’ s s entenc e dur ing the hear ing

. In fact , G ay tan made no o bje ct io n t o the se ntenc e “ in any pos t- tr ial moti on, o n any g roun ds, no r did [s]he ever lodge an objectio n, un der con stitutio nal or oth er groun ds, to the alleged disparity , cruelty, unu sualn ess or excessiv ene ss of the sent ence s.” Tr evi no , 174 S. W .3d a t 927

. T h e s e n te nce impos ed i s n ot i ll eg al and i s w it hin the puni shment
ra ng e prov ide d by

st atute

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 12.33 (V er non 200 3) ( pr ov idi ng4

a puni shmentr ang e of tw o to tw enty y ears’ i mpri sonmentan d a f in e of not mor e tha n $10,000 for s econd -d eg re e feloni es) ; id. § 22 .02( b) ( maki ng an a g g ra v ated ass aul t a
sec ond- deg re e felony ); id. § 12.34 (V er non 2003) ( pr ov idi ng a pu nis hment rang e for thi rd
deg re e feloni es of tw o to ten y ears i mpri sonmentand a fine of no t more than $10,000 ); id. § 38 .11 (g ) ( ma king “ proh ibited substa nce in correctio nal f acility ” a third-degree f elon y ). Gay tan arg ues that itis “ w it hin a c our t’ s p ow er to re v iew

a sentence im p o s e d b y a jud g e or jur

y and to de ter mine w hether su ch sentence pass ed c onst it uti onal must er , ev en if no objection s w ere m ade during trial.” Love joy v. Lillie , 5 6 9 S

. W

. 2 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 3 (T e x. Ci v. App.–Ty ler

1978, w ri t ref’d n.r .e.) ( emphasi s a dded)

. Lovej oy does not appl y

to the p re sent
cas e. In Lovej

oy , the T y ler Court of

Appe als sua sponte co nsi der ed w hether se cti on 42 of the Tex as Pr obate Cod e , a s it w as then w ri tten, w as cons ti tuti onal i n l ig ht of the Supr eme C our

t’ s d eci si on i n Tr

im ble v. Gor

don , w her e the C our

t hel d uncon sti tuti onal an Il li noi s i ntes tate suc ces si on s tatut e tha t di sc ri minat ed ag ain st il leg it imat e chi ldren. Trim ble
v. Gor don , 430 U.S. 762, 776 (1977)

. Nei ther Lov ejo y nor Li ll ie ra is ed th e i ss ue befor e the tr ial cour t, y et the Ty ler Cou rt of A ppeal s hel d that itco uld co nsi der the is sue. Lovej

oy , 569 S

. W

. 2 d a t5 0 3 (“ I tis t h e we ll e s t a b li s h e d la w in t h i s s t a t e t h a tt h e co u rt wil l a lwa ys adj udi cat e w hether

a s tatut e is c onst it uti onal w hen i ts uncon sti tuti onal it y i s o bv iou s a nd appar ent, re g ar dle ss of w hen or how the q uest ion is rais ed.” ) (e mphasi s a dded)

. The Ty ler Court of Appe als det ermin ed that sect ion 42 of the pro bat e cod e w as, un der Trim ble , an
unco nstitu tiona l sta tute

. Id. at 503- 04. In t he c a s e b e fo r e u s , w e a r e n o t d e a l i n g w i t h w h e t h e r a n a p p e l l a t e c o u rt may
cons ide r the c onst it uti onal it y of a sta tute w hen nei ther par ty ra is ed th e i ss ue befor e the tr ial5

cour t. W e ar e as ked to de ter mine w hether Gaytan prop er ly

pr eser v ed er ro r re g ar din g her cl aim of uncons ti tuti onal ly di spropor

ti onate sentenci

ng
. Nei ther

party , in t he tr ial co urt or bef ore us, raised an issue regarding the co nstitu tiona lity of any statute s. Th u s, w e are unpersuade d tha t Lovej oy appl ies to the p re sentca se. Beca use Gay tan fai led to pr oper ly obj ectto th e t ria l cour t’ s s entenc e, an d “[ b ] e c a u s e t h e se n t e n c e im p o s e d is wit h in t h e p u n is h m e n tra n ge a n d is n o til le g a l, we
conc lud e tha t t he r ig hts [Gay tan] ass erts for the first ti me on ap peal ar e notso fundamental
as to hav e reliev ed [h er] of the ne cessity of

a time ly , specif ic trial obje ction. ” Tr evi no , 174 S. W .3 d a t 9 2 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) ). G ay tan’ s i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. III
. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led Gaytan’ s o nly i ss ue, w e aff ir m the jud g ments 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). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 27t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.