Opinion
05-22-01071-CR
06-21-2023
RUSSELL SCOTT FREEMAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 02-21-0287
Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE.
A jury found appellant Russell Scott Freeman guilty of the offense of theft of property with a value of less than $2,500. Appellant pleaded true to two prior state-jail felony convictions, which enhanced the punishment range to a third-degree felony. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.425. The jury sentenced him to ten years' confinement, and the trial court ordered the sentence to run consecutive with, and "stacked on top" of, three prior sentences out of Parker County, Texas. Appellant argues the trial court denied him due process and due course of law by granting the State's motion to cumulate his sentence under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.08(b). We affirm the trial court's judgment. Because appellant has not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, we include only those facts necessary for disposition of this appeal and issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. Rs. App. P. 47.1, 47.4.
The State filed a motion to cumulate sentences under article 42.08(b), which provides that "if a defendant is sentenced for an offense while the defendant was an inmate . . . the judge shall order the sentence for the subsequent offense to commence immediately on completion of the sentence for the original offense." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.08(b); Basden v. State, 897 S.W.2d 319, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (en banc) (stating intent of article 42.08(b) is to deter inmates from committing crimes during their incarceration and to more harshly punish those who do). It is undisputed appellant did not commit the theft in this case while incarcerated; therefore, appellant contends the trial court denied him due process and due course of law by granting the State's motion and cumulating his sentences.
It is well-established that almost every right, constitutional and statutory, may be waived for failure to object. Ledbetter v. State, No. 05-10-01223-CR, 2012 WL 593424, at *8 (Tex. App.-Dallas Feb. 24, 2012, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must present the trial court with a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the desired ruling. Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a); Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 886- 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (en banc). Appellant did not object to his sentence on due process, due course of law, or any other grounds at the time it was imposed, and he did not raise his arguments in a post-trial motion. Having failed to object, appellant cannot now complain that his punishment violates his constitutional rights. Ledbetter, 2012 WL 593424 (citing Marrow v. State, 169 S.W.3d 328, 329-30 (Tex. App.-Waco 2005, pet. ref'd) (concluding appellant failed to preserve argument that cumulation of sentences violated due process)). Appellant's issue is overruled, and we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Appellant's motion for new trial argued "the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, and/or the plea was not entered voluntarily."
JUDGMENT
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.