Opinion
No. 06-09-00029-CR
Date Submitted: May 7, 2009.
Date Decided: May 8, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 3rd Judicial District Court Anderson County, Texas, Trial Court No. 29272.
Before MORRISS, C.J., CARTER and MOSELEY, JJ.
Stacie Lynn Oliver has appealed from the adjudication of her guilt for the offense of forgery. The trial court sentenced her to two years' confinement in a state jail facility. On appeal, Oliver contends that her sentence is disproportionate to the crime, citing, among other cases, Fluellen v. State, 71 S.W.3d 870 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd), and Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd). To preserve such a complaint for appellate review, Oliver must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the specific grounds for the desired ruling, or the complaint must be apparent from the context. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Harrison v. State, 187 S.W.3d 429, 433 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005); Williams v. State, 191 S.W.3d 242, 262 (Tex.App.-Austin 2006, no pet.) (claims of cruel and unusual punishment must be presented in timely manner); Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd) (failure to complain to trial court that sentences were cruel and unusual waived claim of error for appellate review). We have reviewed the records of the trial proceeding. No relevant request, objection, or motion was made. And, while this Court has held that a motion for new trial is an appropriate way to preserve this type of claim for review ( see Williamson v. State, 175 S.W.3d 522, 523-24 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.), and Delacruz v. State, 167 S.W.3d 904 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.)), no motion for new trial was filed. Thompson has not preserved such an issue for appeal. There being no other issues before us, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.