See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 2.02 1 (V ern on S up p. 20 09 ). 1 See i d. § 2 1.11 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 09 ). 2 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0011 5-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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
FR A NK F IGUE ROA , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee. On appeal fr om the 117th Dist ri ct Court of

Nu eces C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef o re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es R o d rig u ez a n d G ar za M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Pur suant to a ple a ag re ement, appel lan t, Fr ank Fi g uer oa, p lea ded g uil ty to sev en count s o f agg ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d, a fir st- deg re e f elo ny , and thr ee c ounts of 1 ind ecenc y

w it h a c hil d, a sec ond- deg re e felony

. By a s ing le is sue, F ig uer oa c ontends that 2 the p uni shment i mposed w as dis pr opor ti onate to t he s er iou snes s o f the all eg ed offense,2

in v iol ati on of the Ei g hth and Four teent h Amendments to the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on. See U. S. C ON ST
. am en d. V II I, X IV

. W e mo di fy t he j ud g me nt a nd a s mo di fi ed , affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Fig euro a w as cha rg ed b y i nd i c tm ent w ith seven coun ts of agg rav ate d sexual assau lt of a chi ld and t hr ee c ounts of ind ecenc y w it h a c h ild. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 22.021, 21.1 1 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 0 0 9 ). P ur suant to a pl ea ag re ement w it h the Sta te, Fi g uer oa pl eaded g uil ty to all counts , judi ci all y

confessed to committ ing the off enses , and stipula ted to evidence su ppo rting the plea s. Th e trial court acce pte d Figueroa’s plea s,
a ss e ssed puni shment at tw enty y ear s’ i mpri sonment on e ach count , and or der ed th e sent ences to ru n c oncur re ntl y . The sent ences i mposed by the tr ial cour t w er e w it hin the sta tutor y r ang e o f

p u n is hment. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 12.32 (p ro v idi ng that the puni shment r ang e for a fir st- deg re e felony is impr is onment for

a t er m of f iv e to nin ety -n ine y ear s o r lif e , pl us an opt ion al fine not to ex ceed $10,000 ), 12.3 3 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009) (provi ding that the pu nishm ent range f or a secon d-de gr ee fe lony is imprisonm ent f or a term of tw o to twenty y ears, plu s an op tiona l fin e no t to exceed $ 10, 000 ). II. D I SPRO POR TI ON A TE P UNI S HMENT In a single issue, Figueroa co nte nds t h a t h is tw ent y y ear sen ten ce is d is p ro p o rt io n a t e t o t h e a ll e ge d o f f e n s e s
. T h e E ig h t h A m e n d m e n t p ro vid e s t h a t “e xc e s s ive bai l shal l not be req uir ed, nor ex ces si v e f ine s impos ed, nor cr uel and unusu al puni shment infli cte d.” U .S. C ON ST
. amend. V III

. The Ei g ht A mendment i s a ppl ic abl e to the s tates by and t hr ough the Four

teent h Amendment

. See U. S. C ON ST . amend. X IV; Robinso n v. Ca li fornia , 3 7 0 U

. S

. 6 6 0 , 6 6 7 ( 1 9 6 2 )

. S t r i c t p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y b e t w e e n t h e c r i me a n d the sent ence is not required; rathe r, the Eighth Am end me nt f orbids extreme sente nces th at are “g ro ss ly di spr opor

ti onate” to the c ri me. Ew ing v. California , 538 U .S . 11, 23 ( 2003)

. In3

g ener al, Tex as cour

ts hav e held that as long as the puni shment as ses sed falls w it hin the sta tutor y rang e, t he puni shment i s n ot ex ces si v e. See Jor dan v. Stat e , 495 S.W .2d 9 49, 952 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1973) ; Trevino v. Sta te , 174 S.W .3d 9 25, 9 28 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Christi 2005 , pet . ref ’d). Fi g uer oa made no o b je ct io n to his se ntenc e to the t ri al cour t ei ther at the t ime of sent encin g or in any post-trial motio n. T o prese rv e error f or app ellate rev iew , a party must pr esent a ti mely

obj ect ion to the t ri al cour t, sta te t he s peci fic g ro unds for th e obj ect ion , and obtai n a r uli ng
. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1( a)

. By fail ing to spec ific all y

obj ect to the a ll eg ed dis pr opor

ti onate sent ence in the t ri al cour t or i n a post -t ri al moti on, F ig uer oa has w aiv ed any er ro r for our

r ev iew

. See N ola nd v

. St ate , 264 S.W .3d 1 44, 1 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1s t D is t.] 2007, pet. r ef’d) ( “[ I]n or der to pr eser

v e f or appell ate rev iew

a compl ain t t hat a sent ence is gros sly

di spr opor

ti onate, co nst it uti ng cr uel and unusu al puni shment , a defendant mus t pr esent to the t ri al cour t a ti mely req uest , objec ti on, or moti on s tati ng the spec ific g ro unds for th e r uli ng des ir ed.” ); Tr evi no , 174 S.W .3d a t 927 -2 8 (“ Be ca u se the sent ence impos ed i s w it hin the puni shment r ang e and is not il leg al, w e concl ude t hat t he ri gh t s [ a ppe llant] a sserts f or the f irst time on app eal are n ot so f und am ent al as to h a ve
re li ev ed hi m of the nec ess it y of a ti mely , s peci fic t ri al objecti on.” ); see a lso Fitz gera ld v. Stat e , N o. 13 -0 7- 609- CR , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4 539, at * *3- 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti June 18, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( hol din g that appel lan t did not pr eser

v e the i ss ue of w hether the puni shment asses sed w as dis pr opor ti onate
w here he “neith er object ed to his sente nce n or raised the issue in his mo tion f or new trial”). Acc or din g ly , F ig uer oa’ s s ole i ss ue i s o v er ru led

.

III . M ODI FI CA TI ON OF T RI A L C OURT ’ S J UDGME NT The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment mist akenl y refers to sec ti on 21.22, a non- ex is tent sec ti on4

of the pena l code, i nst ead of se cti on 21 .1 1 , as the s tatut e c oncer nin g the off ense of ind ecenc y

w it h a c hil d. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 21.11. Be caus e w e hav e the
nece ssarydata and ev iden ce f or ref orma tion, w e mo dif y the trial court’s judgm ent to ref lect the cor re ct st atute f or

the off ense— Tex as Penal C ode s ect ion 21.1 1. See i d. ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 3.2; Bi

gle y v . St ate , 865 S.W .2d 26, 27 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93).

IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led F ig uer oa’ s s ole i ss ue, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment as modified

.

_________ _________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do Not Publ is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Oct ober , 200 9.