Case Information
*1 In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-15-00201-CR SERGIO FONZA-CAREY, Appellant V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 43866-A Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley *2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to an open plea, the trial court found Sergio Fonza-Carey guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. [1] After a trial to the bench, the trial court imposed the minimum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. [2] On appeal, Fonza-Carey complains that the punishment imposed violates the prohibition against disproportionate sentences under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
To preserve a complaint for appellate review, Fonza-Carey must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the specific grounds for his desired ruling, or the complaint must be apparent from the context. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a)(1); Hookie v. State , 136 S.W.3d 671, 679–80 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.). We have previously held that to preserve a disproportionate sentence complaint on appeal, a defendant must either object at the time the sentence is imposed, or assert the complaint in a timely filed motion for new trial. See Mullins v. State , 208 S.W.3d 469, 470 n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.); Hookie , 136 S.W.3d at 680; Jackson v. State , 989 S.W.2d 842, 845 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.). Our review of the record shows that this complaint was not presented to the trial court. [3] Therefore, Fonza-Carey’s sole complaint on appeal has not been preserved for our review.
*3 We affirm the judgment.
Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: August 19, 2016
Date Decided: August 22, 2016
Do Not Publish
[1] See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 46.04(a), (c) (West 2011).
[2] See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . §§ 12.34(a) (West 2011).
[3] Fonza-Carey made no objection when his sentence was imposed. Although he filed a generalized motion for new trial, the motion did not raise the issue of a grossly disproportionate sentence or assert a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.