Carmichael v. State

Full title: PATRICK DANIEL CARMICHAEL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston

Date published: May 15, 2003

No. 01-02-00906-CR (Tex. App. May. 15, 2003)

Opinion

No. 01-02-00906-CR

Opinion issued May 15, 2003 Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 248th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 886228

Panel consists of Justices HEDGES, NUCHIA, and KEYES.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant was charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child. A jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of indecency with a child and assessed punishment at six years' confinement. We affirm.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

In his sole point of error, appellant contends that his six-year sentence violates the prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment found in the United States and Texas Constitutions. U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Tex. Const. art. I, § 13. Appellant argues that he should have received probation because he had no criminal history. To preserve error for appellate review, a defendant must make a timely, specific objection, at the earliest opportunity, and obtain an adverse ruling. Tex.R.App.P. 33.1. Appellant did not object at the sentencing hearing to his six-year sentence on the basis of cruel or unusual punishment. Nor did he raise the complaint to the trial court. Therefore, appellant has waived this issue. See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Steadman v. State, 31 S.W.3d 738, 742 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd). The sole point of error is overruled.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Adele Hedges, Justice