SHIQUALA WINETTA PEMBERTON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

SHIQUALA WINETTA PEMBERTON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 05–10–00822–CR

Decided: March 29, 2011

Before Justices Morris, Bridges, and Francis

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Morris

In these cases, Shiquala Winetta Pemberton appeals from the adjudication of her guilt for two prostitution convictions.   In two issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by assessing an eighteen-month jail sentence in each case.   We affirm.   The background of the cases and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore 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 cases is well settled.

In each case, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to prostitution with three or more prior convictions for prostitution.   The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed appellant on five years' community supervision.   The State later moved to adjudicate guilt in each case, alleging appellant failed to complete a residential treatment program.   Appellant pleaded true to the allegation in a hearing on the motions.   The trial court found the allegation true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at eighteen months confinement in a state jail facility in each case.

In her two issues on appeal, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in assessing the eighteen-month jail terms because she was “willing to work and no longer wanted to do drugs.”   Appellant did not complain about the sentences at the time they were imposed.   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).   Appellant filed motions for new trial alleging “a 6 month sentence would adequately serve the ends of justice.”   There is nothing in the record, however, that shows appellant's motions for new trial were ever presented to the trial court.   Thus, appellant has not preserved this complaint for our review.   We resolve her two issues against her.

We affirm the trial court's judgments.

JOSEPH B. MORRIS JUSTICE

Copied to clipboard