From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Makin v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Oct 30, 2014
No. 10-14-00044-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 30, 2014)

Opinion

No. 10-14-00044-CR

10-30-2014

DANIEL DEE MAKIN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 08-03139-CRF-272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Daniel Makin appeals from a revocation of his community supervision for the offense of theft of copper valued at less than $20,000, for which he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in the state jail. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 31.03 (e)(4)(F)(iii) (West 2011). Makin complains that the sentence imposed was excessive pursuant to the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution. Because we find that this complaint was not preserved, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Makin argues that the imposition of the maximum sentence for a state jail felony was excessive and grossly disproportionate to the offense and the violations of Makin's community supervision pursuant to the Eighth Amendment. An appellant must make an objection in the trial court for us to review this issue for error on appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Claims of cruel and unusual punishment can be waived if not brought before the trial court. See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (failure to raise a challenge to sentence under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the trial court leads to waiver on appeal); Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151-52 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd) (waiver of cruel and unusual punishment claim occurred because no objection was made at trial).

Makin did not raise any objection to the punishment at the trial court either at the time of sentencing or in a motion for new trial. As a result, he has waived this complaint. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Rhoades, 934 S.W.2d at 120. We overrule Makin's sole issue.

Conclusion

Having found that Makin did not preserve his sole issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed October 30, 2014
Do not publish
[CR25]


Summaries of

Makin v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Oct 30, 2014
No. 10-14-00044-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 30, 2014)
Case details for

Makin v. State

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL DEE MAKIN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Oct 30, 2014

Citations

No. 10-14-00044-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 30, 2014)

Citing Cases

Morton v. State

See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); see also Makin v. State, No. 10-14-00044-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 11944, at…