Court Opinion

ID: 9414620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 08:12:28.691325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.804996
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-23-00058-CR

         ANDRE DESHAWN JAMES, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

         On Appeal from the 349th District Court
                Houston County, Texas
              Trial Court No. 20CR-180

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
        Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Andre Deshawn James pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a knife), a

second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (Supp.). Pursuant to a plea bargain

agreement with the State, James pled true to the State’s punishment enhancement allegation (a

prior conviction for injury to a disabled person and retaliation) and was placed on deferred

adjudication community supervision for seven years. Seven months later, the State alleged that

James violated nine terms and conditions of his community supervision. Consequently, it filed a

motion to proceed with an adjudication of James’s guilt. The trial court found five of the

allegations in the State’s motion “true,” adjudicated James’s guilt, and sentenced him to eight

years’ imprisonment.

        In his sole point of error on appeal, James argues that the trial court’s sentence is grossly

disproportionate to his offense and constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13, of the Texas

Constitution.1 We find this issue unpreserved.

        “A party is not excused from the procedural requirements for objecting at trial merely

because an error involves a constitutional right.” Jimenez v. State, 32 S.W.3d 233, 235 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2000). “To preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence is grossly

disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual punishment, a defendant must present to the trial

court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired.”

1
 Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme
Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We find no difference
between the precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and this Court on the relevant issues in this case. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 41.3.
                                                        2
Davis v. State, 614 S.W.3d 223, 232 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020, no pet.) (quoting Navarro v.

State, 588 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, no pet.)); Mason v. State, No. 12-19-

00006-CR, 2020 WL 975362, at *5 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 28, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication); see Darnell v. State, No. 12-19-00029-CR, 2019 WL 2461654, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 31, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). A

review of the record shows that James lodged no complaint about his sentence, including

constitutionality or disproportionality, at trial. Also, he filed no motion for new trial raising this

issue. Because he did not present it to the trial court, we find James’s sole point of error

unpreserved for our review.

       We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                               Jeff Rambin
                                               Justice

Date Submitted:        July 20, 2023
Date Decided:          July 28, 2023

Do Not Publish

                                                  3