Opinion
No. 06-04-00075-CR
Submitted: December 23, 2004.
Decided: January 7, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court, Gregg County, Texas, Trial Court No. 30481-B.
Before MORRISS, C.J., ROSS and CARTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nevil Bray Anderson appeals from his conviction on his open plea of guilty to the trial court for driving while intoxicated, subsequent offense. The range of punishment was between two and ten years' imprisonment, and a $10,000.00 fine. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.34 (Vernon 2003), § 49.09(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). The trial court assessed Anderson's punishment at six years' imprisonment. Anderson contends in a single issue that the punishment assessed is constitutionally infirm because it is disproportionate to the offense. Before we can address this issue on the merits, it must be preserved for our review. In Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 845 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.), we held that a defendant is required to raise in the trial court at the time the sentence is imposed any objection he or she might have on the ground of disproportionality. In this case, Anderson did not present this issue to the trial court by any means, by objection or otherwise; therefore, he did not preserve it for our review. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a); Hookie v. State, 136 S.W.3d 671, 679-80 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet.); Alberto v. State, 100 S.W.3d 528, 529-30 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Rodriguez v. State, 71 S.W.3d 778, 779 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.); Jackson, 989 S.W.2d at 844; Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd). Here, Anderson filed a motion for new trial asserting "the punishment verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence in this case." This general, nonspecific objection does not preserve the issue now raised. See Stevens v. State, 667 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). We affirm the judgment.