Leonard James Hall v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                         COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 02-15-00094-CR
    LEONARD JAMES HALL                                                APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                      STATE
    ----------
    FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
    TRIAL COURT NO. 1352061D
    ----------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    ----------
    This is an appeal from a judgment revoking deferred adjudication
    community supervision and adjudicating guilt. In 2013, Appellant Leonard James
    Hall pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to aggravated assault with a
    deadly weapon.     See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011).
    Following this plea, the trial court placed Hall on seven years’ deferred
    1
    See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    adjudication community supervision and imposed a $700 fine. In 2015, the State
    filed a petition to proceed to adjudication, alleging in five paragraphs multiple
    violations by Hall of the conditions of his deferred adjudication community
    supervision. Hall pleaded not true to all five alleged violations. The trial court
    found that Hall had committed the violations alleged in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5;
    revoked Hall’s deferred adjudication community supervision; adjudicated his guilt
    of the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; and sentenced him to
    seven years’ confinement. In a single issue, Hall argues that the seven-year
    sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive and disproportionate. We will
    affirm.
    Hall concedes that he did not object to his punishment when it was
    imposed, nor did he raise this complaint in a motion for new trial. We have held
    on numerous occasions that this type of claim must be preserved at the trial court
    level. See Kim v. State, 
    283 S.W.3d 473
    , 475 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet.
    ref’d); Acosta v. State, 
    160 S.W.3d 204
    , 211 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no
    pet.); see also Cisneros v. State, No. 02-06-00103-CR, 
    2007 WL 80002
    , at *1
    (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 23, 2007, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for
    publication) (collecting cases); cf. Burt v. State, 
    396 S.W.3d 574
    , 577 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2013) (“A sentencing issue may be preserved by objecting at the
    punishment hearing, or when the sentence is pronounced.”). Because Hall did
    2
    not raise his complaint in the trial court, the complaint is forfeited. 2 We overrule
    Hall’s sole issue.
    Having overruled Hall’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    /s/ Sue Walker
    SUE WALKER
    JUSTICE
    PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: August 27, 2015
    2
    Even if we were to reach the merits of Hall’s complaint, his punishment is
    within the statutory limits for the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.33(a),
    30.02(c)(2) (West 2011). Punishment that is imposed within the statutory limits
    and based upon the sentencer’s informed normative judgment is generally not
    subject to challenge for excessiveness except in “‘exceedingly rare’” situations.
    
    Kim, 283 S.W.3d at 476
    (quoting Ex parte Chavez, 
    213 S.W.3d 320
    , 323–24
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)); see also Davis v. State, 
    323 S.W.3d 190
    , 195–96 (Tex.
    App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref’d) (stating that punishment within statutory range was
    not excessive, cruel, or unusual when defendant argued that the penitentiary
    could not provide treatment for his medical condition).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-15-00094-CR

Filed Date: 8/27/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015