## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00269

- CR

________ ____ _______ _ _______

On Appeal from the 43rd District Court P arker County, Texas Trial Court No. CR20

- 0026

Before Kerr, Womack, a n d Walker, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Walker 

### D ERRICK 

### Q UENTIN 

### D ONNELL 

### M ORGAN A 

### / K 

### / A 

### D ERRICK 

### Q UENTIN



### M ORGAN 

### D ONNELL 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE O F 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. INTROD UCTION AND BACKGROU ND
In June 2020 , Appellant Derrick Quentin Donnell Morgan a /k/a D errick Quentin Morgan Donnell pleaded guilty to the state

- jail felony offense of possession
of less than one gram of methamphetamine

. Pursuant to a p lea agreeme nt, the trial court placed Donnell on four years ’ deferred adjudication. The State then mov ed to proceed wi th Donne ll ’ s adjudication , alleging that he had violated numerous terms and conditions of his community superv ision

. Donnell pleaded true to t he allegations and asked the trial court to assess his punishment. After a hearing at which Donnell testified, the tr ial court found the allegations true, adjudicate d Donnell guilty, and

sentenc ed him to f

ifteen months ’ confinement. Donnell appeals from that judgment

. We will affirm.
II. DISCUSSION In two issues, D onnell complains that the trial court abused its discreti on by imposing a s entence that was cruel and unusual and grossly disproportio nate to the
offense that he committed

. He concede s that this sentence was within the range prescribed by the legislature for a state

- jail felony offense , but he ask s this court t o

“ find as a matter of law that a 15 [

- ] mo nth sentence for a state [

- ]jail felon y revocation where the range of p unishment is 180 days to two years in st ate jail . . . is excessive and disprop ortionate. ” The State contends that Donnell failed to pre serve th ese3

iss ues for appellate review bec ause he did not o bject to th e sentence at the hearing
when it was imposed or lat er through a m otion for new t rial

. We agree with the State. Generally, an appellant may not complain about his sentence for the first time

o n appeal. Curry v. State , 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (T ex. Crim. App. 1995); Mercado v. State , 718 S .W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Means v. State , 347 S.W.3d 873, 874 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2011, no pet.); Laboriel

- Guity v. State , 336 S.W.3d 754, 7 56 (Tex

. App.

— Fort Worth 2011, pet. ref’d). This includ es complain ts that a sentence is cruel
and unusual or grossly disprop orti onate
. Ki m v . State , 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref ’ d) ; see Vasquez v. State , No. 02

- 16

- 00194

- CR, 20 17
WL 2 178876, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Ma y 18, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

. To preserve such comp laints for appellate review, a defendant must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specifi c grounds for the ruling desired. T ex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); see Rhoades v. State , 934 S.W.2d 113 , 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (hol ding that complaint of cruel and
unusual punishment under Texas constitution was waived because defendant presented his argumen t for the first time on appeal); Nol and v. State , 264 S.W.3d 144,
151

– 52 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1 st Dist.] 2 007, pet. ref ’ d) (holding that wh en appellant failed to objec t to his sentence at the punishment hearing or to complain about it in
his motion for new trial , he failed to preserve his Eig hth Ame ndment complaint that
the punishment assessed was “ grossly dis proportionate and oppressive”); s ee also
Mercado , 718 S.W.2d at 296 (stating that as a general rule, appellant may not assert4

error pertaining to his s entence or punishment when he failed to obj ect or otherwise
raise such error in the trial cour t).
Donnel l concedes that he did not lodge an objection or file a motion for new
trial to preserve any purported sentencing error , and o ur revi ew of the record

c onfirms this. Instead , he asks that we con sider his issues “ in the interest of justice

. ”
But , preservat

ion of error is a “ syst emic requirement ” ; it is axiomatic that an appellate

court may not addres s unpreserved error

. State v. Herndon , 215 S.W.3d 901, 909 (T ex. Crim. App. 2007) ; DeBlanc v. Sta te , 799 S.W.2d 701, 709 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1990) ; see Kim , 2 83 S.W.3d at 475; Ramos v. State , 819 S.W.2d 939, 943 (Tex. App.

— Corpus
Christi

– Edinburg 1991, pet. ref

’ d).
E ven if we could reach the merits of Donnell ’ s argu ments, a punishment imposed within the stat utory limit s, as here, is generally not subj ect to challenge for
excessiveness. See Kim , 283 S.W.3d at 475. Except under a very limited, “exceedingly rare,” and somewhat amorphous Eighth Amendment gross

- dis propo rtionali ty review, a punishment fallin g wit hin the leg islatively prescribed range and b ased on the

sentencer ’ s informed normative judgment is unassailable on appeal. Id . at 475

– 76 ; see White v. State , No. 02

- 16

- 00158

- CR, 2017 WL 1089691, at *8 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Mar. 23, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication).
For these reasons, we overrule Donnell ’ s two issues.

III. CONCLUSION Having overruled Donnell ’ s issues , we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment.5 / s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker Justice

Do N ot Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
D eliver ed : March 7, 2024