Opinion
NUMBER 13-13-00130-CR
10-30-2014
DAVID WOOD, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
Appellant David Wood challenges his conviction after a bench trial for class A misdemeanor assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1), (b) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). By two issues, appellant complains of the trial court's adjudication on the misdemeanor assault charge, which was a lesser-included offense of the originally indicted offense of felony injury to a child. We affirm.
I. Background
Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
Appellant was indicted for injury to a child, a first-degree felony, in connection with his alleged assault of A.W., his son. See id. § 22.04(a), (e) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). Appellant pleaded not guilty, and his case was tried to the bench. After the close of evidence and argument by counsel, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of class A misdemeanor assault. See id. § 22.01(a)(1), (b). This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
By two issues on appeal, appellant complains of the trial court's verdict on a lesser-included offense, arguing that class A misdemeanor assault is not a lesser-included offense of felony injury to a child and that his due process rights were violated because he had no notice that the trial court was considering a lesser-included offense. Neither argument was made to the trial court. Because appellant failed to present the complaints to the trial court he now makes on appeal, he failed to preserve them for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ("A specific objection is necessary to inform the trial judge of the issue and basis of the objection, and to allow the judge a chance to rule on the issue at hand."). Appellant's issues are overruled.
Appellant also seems to raise a double jeopardy issue, complaining that "appellant cannot be reprosecuted [for the greater offense of felony injury to a child] . . . , since the court implicitly found appellant not guilty of the felony charge." We express no opinion on this statement of the law; nothing in the record indicates that appellant has been "reprosecuted," so his double jeopardy issue is, if cognizable at all, premature at this stage.
Finally, appellant asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel but cites no authority and makes no substantive argument in support of this assertion. It is therefore inadequately briefed, and our review is waived. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i).
III. Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 30th day of October, 2014.