COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

TRACY FRANKL I

N, SR., Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-10-00009- CR

Appea l from Criminal District Court of Jeffer son County , Texas (TC # 91799)

O P I N I O N
Trac y Fr anklin, Sr. appea ls from a judgment adjudicating him g uilty of sex ual assault of a child and asse ssing punishment at imprisonment for te n y ear s. We affirm.
F ACTUAL SUMMA RY The trial cou

r t p la c e d A p p e ll a n t o n d e f e r r e d a djudication community supervision on Marc h 6, 2006 for a term of ten y ear s. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate alleg ing Appellant violated sever al conditions of community supervision. The motion alleg ed that Appellant failed to
repor t, failed to provide verific ation that he had attended the J eff erson County Sex Offe nder Group Counseling, and failed to pay court-a ssessed fee s. At the hear ing, Appellant pled true to the alleg ation that he failed to pay court-a ssessed fee s and the State prese nted evi d ence rela ted to the other allege d v iolations. The trial court found the evidenc e sufficie nt to prove Appellant had violated the conditions as alleg ed in the motion. The court g rante d the State’s motion, adjudicate d Appellant’s g uilt, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for a term of ten y ear s. This appea l follows. CONSTIT UTIONALITY OF SENTENCEI n I ssue One, A ppellant contends tha t his sentence is constitutionally disproportionate and

unrea sonable in violation o f t h e E ighth Amendment to the Unit ed S tates C onstitut ion. He makes the same arg ument in I ssue Two but bases i t o n Ar t i cle I , Section 13 of the Texas Constit ution. Appellant’s brief does not contain any arg ument or authority explaining how the protec tion provided by the T ex as C o nstitut ion differ s from the protec tion provided by the United States Constit ution. State and fede ral constitutional claims should be arg ued in separ ate g rounds, with separ ate substantive analy sis or arg ument provided for eac h g round. Muniz v. State , 851 S.W .2d 238, 251-52 (Tex.Crim. App. 1993); Heitman v. State , 815 S.W .2d 681, 690-91 n.23 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).
Be cause Appellant has ina dequate ly briefe d the issue re lated to the Te x as C onstitut ion, nothing is
prese nted for our

revie w. See M

uniz , 851 S.W .2d at 251-52; T E X .R.A P P .P. 38.1(I ). Appellant’s Eig hth Amendment issue is not prese rved for revie w beca use he did not object when the court imposed sentenc e nor did he raise the issue in a motio n for new trial. As a
prer equisite to prese nting a complaint for appellate revie w, the rec ord must show that the complaint

was made to the trial court by a timely reque st, objection, or motion that stated the g rounds for the ruling soug ht with sufficie nt specific ity to m ak e t h e t ri al court awa re of the complaint unless the
g rounds were appare nt from the conte x t

. T E X .R.A P P .P. 33.1(a) (1). This require ment applies t o a complaint that a sentenc e is g rossly disproportionate and violates the defe ndant’s constitutional rig ht
t o be fre e from crue l and unusual punishment. See Noland v. State , 264 S.W .3d 144, 151 -5 2 (T ex .App.--H ouston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref ’d); W ynn v. State , 219 S.W .3d 54, 61 (Tex.App

. -- Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also Merc ado v. State , 718 S.W .2d 291, 296 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986)(de fenda

nt may not asser

t er ro r p er taining to his sentenc e or punishment when he failed to object or otherwise raise such err or in the trial court). We overr ule I ssues One and Two and aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.Dec ember 15, 2010 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice
Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

. (Do Not Publish)