Opinion
No. 09-09-00016-CR
Submitted on November 8, 2010.
Opinion Delivered November 24, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 1st District Court, Jasper County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 9856JD.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., KREGER and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ernest Ray Beaty appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery following the revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision and imposition of a sentence of six years of incarceration in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2003). On appeal, Beaty raises a single issue that seeks a construction of the statute that authorizes shock community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 6 (West Supp. 2010). Beaty received deferred adjudication community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(a). The trial court revoked the community supervision order and imposed a six year sentence on December 3, 2008. Beaty concedes that the trial court did not suspend the execution of the sentence within 180 days of the date on which sentence was imposed. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 6. Beaty also concedes that he stands convicted of an aggravated offense that makes him ineligible for community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, §§ 3, 3g(a)(F); see also State v. Dunbar, 297 S.W.3d 777, 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to place a person convicted of an offense listed in article 42.12, section 3g, on shock community supervision). The issue which Beaty seeks to raise was not preserved for appellate review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Accordingly, we overrule issue one and affirm the judgment of the trial court. AFFIRMED.
"As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that: (1) the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that: (A) stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context; and (B) complied with the requirements of the Texas Rules of Civil or Criminal Evidence or the Texas Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure; and (2) the trial court: (A) ruled on the request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly; or (B) refused to rule on the request, objection, or motion, and the complaining party objected to the refusal." Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.