Now, in one issue, Harris complains that the trial court abused its discretion in assessing his punishment. However, Harris did not object when the trial court imposed his twenty-year sentence or complain about his sentence in a motion for new trial. See Curry v. 283 473 475 2009 33 336 756 283 475 (2011)

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Now, in one issue, Harris complains that the trial court abused its discretion in assessing his punishment. However, Harris did not object when the trial court imposed his twenty-year sentence or complain about his sentence in a motion for new trial. See Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (stating that 3 appellant failed to preserve his complaint that his punishment violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because he urged no objection at trial); 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.”); Laboriel–Guity v. State, 336 S.W.3d 754, 756 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet. ref'd) (holding that appellant failed to preserve for review his complaint that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to thirty years' confinement for aggravated robbery when appellant failed to object at sentencing or to file a motion for new trial challenging his sentence's severity); see also Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref'd). Therefore, Harris has failed to preserve this complaint.3 See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a); Laboriel–Guity, 336 S.W.3d at 756; Kim, 283 S.W.3d at 475. We overrule Harris's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.

NO. 02–10–00404–CR

Decided: July 08, 2011

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

PANEL: MCCOY, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.

Tex.R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 7, 2011

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.. FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.

FN2. Harris agreed that the offense was serious and said that he had had the loaded gun with him before he and the other two assailants decided to commit the robbery. He admitted that he had screamed at the complainant, backhanded him across the face, stuck the gun to his neck, and then hit him again before chambering a round in the gun. Harris's mother and sister testified that they did not know Harris was a documented gang member and that they could not believe it when they learned that he had committed aggravated robbery. Harris denied that he was a gang member or that he was culpable for the bond violations that caused him to be taken back into custody. He explained that he had committed the robbery because he was young and because of the community environment that he grew up in. He admitted that he did not need to commit the offense for money because he had a job.. FN2. Harris agreed that the offense was serious and said that he had had the loaded gun with him before he and the other two assailants decided to commit the robbery. He admitted that he had screamed at the complainant, backhanded him across the face, stuck the gun to his neck, and then hit him again before chambering a round in the gun. Harris's mother and sister testified that they did not know Harris was a documented gang member and that they could not believe it when they learned that he had committed aggravated robbery. Harris denied that he was a gang member or that he was culpable for the bond violations that caused him to be taken back into custody. He explained that he had committed the robbery because he was young and because of the community environment that he grew up in. He admitted that he did not need to commit the offense for money because he had a job.

FN3. Further, even if we were to reach the merits here, Harris's twenty-year sentence is well within the statutory punishment range for first-degree felonies, and punishment imposed within the statutory range is generally not subject to challenge for excessiveness. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 29.03(b); Laboriel–Guity, 336 S.W.3d at 757; Kim, 283 S.W.3d at 475–76. Given the seriousness of his offense, which the trial court pointed out was only “one second away from instead of facing life in prison in this case, to facing the death penalty,” we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.. FN3. Further, even if we were to reach the merits here, Harris's twenty-year sentence is well within the statutory punishment range for first-degree felonies, and punishment imposed within the statutory range is generally not subject to challenge for excessiveness. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 29.03(b); Laboriel–Guity, 336 S.W.3d at 757; Kim, 283 S.W.3d at 475–76. Given the seriousness of his offense, which the trial court pointed out was only “one second away from instead of facing life in prison in this case, to facing the death penalty,” we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law