See Beedy, 250 S.W.3d at 110; LaPorte, 840 S.W.2d at 414, Robbins v. State, 914 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). See also Polanco v. State, 914 S.W.2d 269, 272 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996, pets. ref'd) (deleting cumulation order when there was evidence that guilty plea proceedings were intertwined); Smith v. State, 753 S.W.2d 456, 458 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no pet.) (holding trial court erred by cumulating sentences at probation revocation hearing when the two offenses arose out of same criminal episode). See also Dotson v. State, No. 02-03-00463-CR, 2008 WL 2780663, *7 n. 22 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth July 17, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (recognizing same).
He failed to state specific grounds for his objection and he failed to get a ruling from the trial court. No error was preserved for our review. Smith v. State, 753 S.W.2d 456, 457 (Tex.App. — [14th Dist.] 1988, no pet.) citing Esquivel v. State, 595 S.W.2d 516, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980). However, in the interests of justice, we will review appellant's point of error.
Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 3.03 (Vernon 1974) (emphasis added). Appellant argues that Gordon v. State, 633 S.W.2d 872, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982), and Smith v. State, 753 S.W.2d 456, 457 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no pet.), conclusively hold that where the defendant is charged with two or more counts arising from the same criminal episode, and is tried in one proceeding, the court is bound to allow the resulting sentences to run concurrently. We agree. Gordon and Smith, however, do not reach the issue in this case.
Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 3.03 (Vernon 1974) (emphasis added). Appellant argues that Gordon v. State, 633 S.W.2d 872, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982), and Smith v. State, 753 S.W.2d 456, 457 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no pet.), conclusively hold that where the defendant is charged with two or more counts arising from the same criminal episode, and is tried in one proceeding, the court is bound to allow the resulting sentences to run concurrently. We agree. Gordon and Smith, however, do not reach the issue in this case.