Texas law makes a defendant ineligible for judge-ordered community supervision if he used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of or immediate flight from a felony offense. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42A.054(b). For the purposes of this statute, a deadly weapon includes “anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(17)(B). And “using a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony offense extend[s] to ‘any employment of a deadly weapon, even its simple possession, if such possession facilitates the associated felony.'” Davis v. State, 614 S.W.3d 223, 232 (Tex. App. 2020) (quoting Safian v. State, 543 S.W.3d 216, 223-24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)).
An error [if any] in the admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection." Davis v. State, 614 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2020, no pet.)
"To preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence is grossly disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual punishment, a defendant must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired." Davis v. State, 614 S.W.3d 223, 232 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2020, no pet.) (quoting Navarro v. State, 588 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2019, no pet.)); see Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 844 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.).
For these reasons, we conclude that Schlett failed to preserve these claims for appellate consideration. See Davis v. State, 614 S.W.3d 223, 232, 233 (Tex. App -Texarkana 2020, no pet.) (overruling defendant's issue asserting that his sentence was grossly disproportionate to offense because he failed to present motion for new trial making that argument to trial court); see also Means v. State, 347 S.W.3d 873, 874 (Tex. App-Fort Worth 2011, no pet.) (concluding that defendant did not preserve complaint that his sentences were excessive even though "he complained about the length of his sentences in his motions for new trial" because "he did not present either motion to the trial court"); Thompson v. State, 243 S.W.3d 774, 775, 776 (Tex. App-Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref'd) (determining that defendant failed to preserve challenges to length of his sentence on due process and other grounds by failing to object when sentence was imposed or present motion for new trial containing his claims to trial court). Accordingly, we overrule Schlett's fifth and sixth issues
Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (quoting Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)). This rule applies whether the same evidence was admitted "without objection . . . before or after the complained-of ruling." Davis v. State, 614 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2020, no pet.) (quoting Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 193).
"To preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence is grossly disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual punishment, a defendant must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired." Davis v. State, 614 S.W.3d 223, 232 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2020, no pet.) (quoting Navarro v. State, 588 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2019, no pet.)); Mason v. State, No. 12-19-00006-CR, 2020 WL 975362, at *5 (Tex. App.-Tyler Feb. 28, 2020, no pet.)
An error [if any] in the admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection. Davis v. State, 614 S.W.3d 223, 228-29 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2020, no pet.) (alterations in original) (quoting Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (quoting Valle v.State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003))). "This rule applies whether the same evidence was admitted 'without objection . . . before or after the complained-of ruling.'"
"To preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence is grossly disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual punishment, a defendant must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired." Davis v. State, 614 S.W.3d 223, 232 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2020, no pet.) (quoting Navarro v.
"In evaluating legal sufficiency, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment to determine whether any rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Davis v. State, 614 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex App-Texarkana 2020, no pet) (citing Brooks v State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex Crim App 2010) (plurality op) (citing Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Hartsfield v State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex App-Texarkana 2010, pet ref'd)) "Our rigorous legal sufficiency review focuses on the quality of the evidence presented" Id. (citing Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 917- 18 (Cochran, J, concurring)). "We examine legal sufficiency under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the jury 'to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.'" Id.