Opinion
No. 06-09-00015-CR
Date Submitted: May 12, 2009.
Date Decided: May 13, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court Gregg County, Texas, Trial Court No. 36963-B.
Before MORRISS, C.J., CARTER and MOSELEY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert Roy Saurenmann has appealed from his open plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of less than one gram. See Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(b) (Vernon 2003). The court sentenced Saurenmann to twenty months' confinement in a state-jail facility. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35 (Vernon Supp. 2008). On appeal, Saurenmann contends that his sentence is disproportionate to the crime, citing, among other cases, Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), and Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991). To preserve such complaint for appellate review, Saurenmann 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.); Delacruz v. State, 167 S.W.3d 904 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.)), Saurenmann's motion for new trial does not raise the issue of disproportionate sentencing. Therefore, he has not preserved such an issue for appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
We note that the appellant's name is spelled "Sauremann" in the judgment, but is spelled "Saurenmann" throughout the rest of the record. It further appears that the appellant signs his name "Saurenmann." We will use the spelling of "Saurenmann" to refer to the appellant.
The trial court did not conduct a hearing on Saurenmann's motion for new trial, which was overruled by operation of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.8.