Case Name: Kyserius R. TIMMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2010-04-15
Citations: 313 S.W.3d 843
Docket Number: Nos. 2-09-306-CR, 2-09-307-CR, 2-09-308-CR, 2-09-309-CR
Parties: Kyserius R. TIMMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State.
Judges: PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 313
Pages: 843–844

Head Matter:
Kyserius R. TIMMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State.
Nos. 2-09-306-CR, 2-09-307-CR, 2-09-308-CR, 2-09-309-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.
April 15, 2010.
Discretionary Review Refused Aug. 25, 2010.
Brian K. Walker, Burleson, TX, for Appellant.
Joe Shannon, Jr., Criminal District Attorney, Charles M. Mallín, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Chief of Appellate Section, Danielle A. Kennedy & Mark Thielman, Assistant Criminal District Attorneys, Fort Worth, TX, for State.
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
TERRIE LIVINGSTON, Justice.
Appellant Kyserius R. Timms appeals from four separate, concurrent sentences of twelve months' confinement. In each case, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of burglary of a building based on (1) his plea of true to the allegation that he violated his deferred adjudication community supervision by committing the new offense of theft and (2) the trial court's finding that he failed to participate fully in theft intervention classes that were a condition of his community supervision. Appellant brings a single issue contending that his sentences are excessive and disproportionate. Because appellant did not make this complaint in the trial court, he has failed to preserve, it for our review. See Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(a)(1); Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) ("As a general rule, an appellant may not assert error pertaining to his sentence or punishment where he failed to object or otherwise raise such error in the trial court."); Thompson v. State, 243 S.W.3d 774, 775-76 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref'd). Accordingly, we overrule his sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgments.
DAUPHINOT, J. filed a concurring opinion.
.Although appellant filed a pro se brief asking for a new trial, he did not raise the issue he brings on appeal. See Heidelberg v. State, 144 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); Vafaiyan v. State, 279 S.W.3d 374, 383 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref'd).