TREMAINE MABRY v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2010)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Morris

In this case, Tremaine Mabry appeals his conviction for injury to a child.   In two points of error, appellant contends he was denied due process under the United States and Texas Constitutions.   We affirm the trial court's judgment.   The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation of the facts.   We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.

Appellant was indicted for the offense of capital murder of a child under six years of age.   Appellant waived a jury and, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to injury to a child by omission and with serious bodily injury.   The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on five years' community supervision, and assessed a $2,500 fine.   The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision.   Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motion.   The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at life imprisonment.

Appellant contends he was denied due process under both the United States and Texas Constitutions because the trial judge did not consider the full range of punishment before imposing the sentence.   Appellant complains that the trial judge said she would assess a severe sentence if he violated his community supervision, and she reiterated her “promise to impose a severe sentence” at the revocation hearing.

Appellant did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in his motion for new trial.   See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1);  Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (for error to be preserved for appeal, the record must show appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion).   After sentencing, appellant did not object to the sentence, and his motion for new trial complained that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence.   Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for our review.   We overrule appellant's two points of error.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

JOSEPH B. MORRIS JUSTICE