From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lombardi v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jul 30, 2010
Nos. 05-10-00068-CR, 05-10-00069-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 30, 2010)

Opinion

Nos. 05-10-00068-CR, 05-10-00069-CR

Opinion Filed July 30, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F05-15749-I, F06-01334-I.

Before Justices RICHTER, LANG-MIERS, and MYERS.


OPINION


Jonathan Michael Lombardi appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for theft of property and securing execution of a document by deception. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in each case because the appeal bond imposed was in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We affirm. Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $1500 or more, but less than $20,000, and securing execution of a document by deception with a value of $1500 or more, but less than $20,000. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A), 32.46(a)(1), (b)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2009). Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for five years and three years, respectively, and assessed a $1500 fine in the deception case. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt in each case, alleging appellant failed to report to his probation officer for three consecutive months. Appellant pleaded true to the allegation in a hearing on the motions. The trial court found the allegation true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility in each case. Appellant contends the trial court erred because the appeal bond amount and the sentence imposed in each case violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII. Appellant asserts the $500,000 appeal bond is excessive, and the trial court should not have imposed the maximum sentence in each case for a technical violation. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review, and, alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the bond amount or in sentencing appellant. Appellant did not complain about the sentences at the time they were imposed or in a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (for error to be preserved for appeal, the record must show appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion). After sentencing, appellant did not object to the sentences, and he did not file a motion for new trial in either case. Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for our review. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the sentences. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (as long as a sentence is within the proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal). Regarding appellant's complaint about the $500,000 appeal bond, he has not adequately briefed this issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); see also Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 23 n. 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (It is not the responsibility of an appellate court to formulate arguments for an appellant where an issue is inadequately briefed). Moreover, appellant's claim lacks merit. The record shows that during the bond hearing, appellant did not complain about the bond amount at the time it was imposed. The record also shows a high bond amount was warranted based upon the testimony at the bond hearing. We overrule appellant sole point of error. In each case, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The prosecutor stated to the trial court that appellant had a $1.4 million default judgment against him stemming from actions appellant took while on probation for two State jail felonies involving theft, and the default judgment did not prevent appellant from failing to report for three consecutive months and testing positive for methamphetamine and cocaine. The prosecutor asked the trial court to set appellant's bond at $300,000. The trial court assessed a $500,000 bond and ordered appellant on electronic monitoring if he made the bond.


Summaries of

Lombardi v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jul 30, 2010
Nos. 05-10-00068-CR, 05-10-00069-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 30, 2010)
Case details for

Lombardi v. State

Case Details

Full title:JONATHAN MICHAEL LOMBARDI, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Jul 30, 2010

Citations

Nos. 05-10-00068-CR, 05-10-00069-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 30, 2010)