Opinion
No. 06-16-00171-CR
05-11-2017
DAWNA YVETTE HARRISON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 45,164-A Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dawna Yvette Harrison entered an open guilty plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount less than one gram. After a punishment hearing, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Harrison on five years' community supervision. As a condition of community supervision, the trial court required Harrison to attend and complete the Bowie County Women's Treatment Program (the Treatment Program), an in-patient drug rehabilitation program. Although Harrison requested some time to visit with her daughter before being placed in the Treatment Program, she made no objection to being placed in the program at the trial court. In a single point of error on appeal, Harrison complains that the trial court erred in imposing in-patient rehabilitation at the Treatment Program without first adjudicating her guilt because it subjected her to involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See U.S. CONST. amend. XIII, § 1. We affirm the trial court's judgment because Harrison has not preserved her complaint regarding involuntary servitude for our review.
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(6), 481.115(b) (West 2010).
Generally, in order to present a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the complaining party made a timely request, objection, or motion to the trial court specifically stating the ground for the ruling she sought and that she obtained the trial court's ruling on the request, objection, or motion. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). The preservation rule gives the trial court "an opportunity to correct the error." Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citing Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). "Even constitutional errors may be waived by failure to object at trial." Stitt v. State, 102 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. ref'd) (citing Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)); see Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Under similar facts, we recently held that a constitutional claim of involuntary servitude without a conviction is among those constitutional claims that are forfeited if not preserved in the trial court. Howard v. State, No 06-16-00148-CR, 2017 WL 1173900, at *1 n.3 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 30, 2017, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The record in this case shows that the issue of involuntary servitude was not raised in the trial court. Therefore, the issue was not preserved for our review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a).
Although unpublished cases have no precedential value, we may take guidance from them "as an aid in developing reasoning that may be employed." Carrillo v. State, 98 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, pet. ref'd).
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice Date Submitted: April 20, 2017
Date Decided: May 11, 2017 Do Not Publish