Court Opinion

ID: 2919146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 00:14:02.521611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:15:52.370773
License: Public Domain

NUMBERS 13-00-089-CR
 						  13-00-090-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI
___________________________________________________________________

RICHARD PENA,							Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,						Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 156th District Court
of Bee County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Chavez and Rodriguez

Opinion by Justice Chavez

	Appellant Richard Pena pleaded guilty to two separate counts of
burglary of a habitation and pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph
regarding a prior felony conviction for burglary of a habitation without
a plea agreement.  The trial court found appellant guilty and imposed
punishment for both offenses at thirty-five years confinement in prison. 
On appeal, he contends that the punishment was disproportionate to the
seriousness of the offense, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution.  We overrule the issue
and affirm the conviction.

	At the hearing on punishment, appellant did not object to the
sentence imposed.  In order to preserve a complaint for appellate review,
a party must have presented the trial court with a timely request,
objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling he desired
if those grounds were not apparent from the context.  Tex. R. App. P.
33.1(a)(1).  Almost any right, constitutional or statutory, may be waived
by failure to make a timely and specific objection.  Little v. State, 758
S.W.2d 551, 563 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Jones v. State, 825 S.W.2d
470, 472 (Tex. App.­Corpus Christi 1991, pet. ref'd).  As a general rule,
an appellant cannot assert error pertaining to his sentence or
punishment when he failed to raise such error in the trial court. 
Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). 
Schneider v. State, 645 S.W.2d 463, 466 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).  This
Court has previously held that an issue concerning the severity of the
defendant's sentence was not preserved when the defendant's
contentions were not raised in either a motion for new trial or by
objection.  Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 479 (Tex. App.­Corpus
Christi 1989, pet. ref'd).  Appellant failed to raise this issue in the trial
court and has not preserved the error.  Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1).  

	The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

							MELCHOR CHAVEZ

							Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 3rd day of August, 2000.