Solis v. State
Decision Date | 24 April 1997 |
Docket Number | 01-96-00086-CR,Nos. 01-96-00085-C,s. 01-96-00085-C |
Parties | Rene SOLIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Sharon Slopis, Houston, for Appellant.
Bonnie Jackson, Houston, for Appellee.
Before TAFT, MIRABAL and WILSON, JJ.
Appellant, Rene Solis, pled guilty to the offenses of aggravated assault and aggravated robbery, without an agreed recommendation of punishment. The trial court entered a deadly weapon finding in each case and sentenced appellant to 20-years and 40-years confinement, respectively. Appellant complains: (1) the sentences were cruel and unusual violating the federal and state constitutions; and (2) the trial court erred in not sua sponte withdrawing appellant's guilty pleas on the basis that his statements in the PSI indicate his pleas were not knowingly and intelligently entered. We affirm.
In appellant's first and second points of error, he contends his sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 13 of the Texas Constitution. See U.S. CONST. amend. VIII; TEX. CONST . art. I, sec. 13. Specifically, appellant contends the trial court erred because "appellant's sentences are grossly disproportionate to the offenses" and the court did not "make a threshold comparison of the gravity of the offenses against the severity of the sentences." See McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir.1992).
The State claims appellant has waived any error by raising this argument for the first time on appeal. It is well established that almost every right, constitutional and statutory, may be waived by failing to object. Smith v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844, 855 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired. TEX.R.APP. P. 52(a). The purpose for the rule is to allow opposing counsel to remove the objection or the trial court to cure any harm. See Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). Appellant did not object in the trial court to the alleged disproportionality of the sentences or the trial court's alleged failure to make a threshold comparison. Appellant has waived any error. See Chapman v. State, 859 S.W.2d 509, 515 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 921 S.W.2d 694 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) ( ); Cruz v. State, 838 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd); Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 479 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd) ( ). Although the courts in Cruz and Quintana went on to address the merits, this Court did not do so in Chapman.
The cases appellant cites are those in which the statutory scheme calls for an automatic sentence, such as in cases involving the death penalty or habitual offender provisions. See, e.g., Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 281-82, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 3005, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) ( ). In both cases here, the trial court was faced with a discretionary decision in assessing punishments within wide ranges (two to 20 and five to 99 or life). In cases where the sentencing is discretionary it is reasonable to require a trial objection so that the trial court might have an opportunity to cure any error.
In the present case, counsel for appellant did request the trial court to take into consideration the sentence a co-defendant received and appellant's low I.Q. The trial court's responses to these efforts were not encouraging. Nevertheless, no objection was made to the sentences assessed, nor were motions for new trial filed alleging cruel and unusual sentences.
Under these circumstances, we hold error was not preserved. We overrule appellant's first and second points of error.
In appellant's third point of error, he contends the trial court erred by not sua sponte withdrawing his guilty pleas on the basis they were not intelligently and knowingly entered. Appellant contends his pleas were involuntary because the pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) contains information allegedly inconsistent with his guilty pleas. Specifically, appellant contends that his statements in the PSI report indicate that he did not intentionally or knowingly cause bodily injury in the aggravated assault case. Appellant stated that he shot a gun into a group of people but did not know that he had hit anyone until a few days later. In regard to the aggravated robbery case, appellant denied having a gun and stated that he only acted as a lookout. Appellant also contends that the record shows he did not understand the consequences of his plea.
When the record reflects the trial court properly admonished the defendant, there is a prima facie showing the plea was knowing and voluntary. Smith v. State, 857 S.W.2d 71, 73 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1993, pet. ref'd). The burden then shifts to the defendant to establish he did not understand the consequences of his plea. Miller v. State, 879 S.W.2d 336, (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd). Appellant does not contend that the trial court improperly admonished him. The record shows that appellant was properly admonished. Nothing in the statement of facts from either plea proceeding rebuts the judgments' recitations that appellant's "plea is freely and voluntarily made, and [he] is aware of the consequences of his plea." To the contrary, the statement of facts fully supports the judgments. The plea of guilty documents entitled Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial Confession, also support the trial court's determination of voluntariness.
Appellant does not cite any authority supporting his assertion that a plea is involuntary when the PSI contains information that is inconsistent with a plea of guilty. Appellant relies on Payne v. State, 790 S.W.2d 649 (Tex....
To continue reading
Request your trial- Ramirez v. State
-
Benson v. State
...court of violations of federal and state due process rights waives appellate review of those claims); Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd) (holding failure to object to trial court that sentence is grossly disproportionate to offense and violat......
-
Reyes v. State
...1999, no pet.) ; Keith v. State , 975 S.W.2d 433, 433–34 (Tex.App.–Beaumont 1998, no pet.) ; Solis v. State , 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd) ; Rodriguez v. State , 917 S.W.2d 90, 92 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1996, pet. ref'd) ; Cruz v. State , 838 S.W.2d 682, 6......
-
Martin v. State, No. 08-02-00144-CR (Tex. App. 1/15/2004)
...waiving a jury. Id. Moon has progeny: Beasley v. State, 634 S.W.2d 320, 321 n.1 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 302-03 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd); Hinkle v. State, 934 S.W.2d 146, 148-49 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, pet. ref'd); Graves v. State, 803......
-
Punishment phase
...investigation; rather the trial judge can find the defendant guilty, not guilty, or guilty of a lesser included offense. Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d ). §20:93.2 Contents of Report The report must contain a proposed client supervision plan de......
-
Pretrial Motions
...in the indictment are true and correct is a judicial confession. Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref ’ d ). However, a defendant’s sworn affirmation reaffirming his guilty plea to the charges in......
-
Punishment Phase
...investigation; rather the trial judge can find the defendant guilty, not guilty, or guilty of a lesser included offense. Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d ). §20:93.2 Contents of Report The report must contain a proposed client supervision plan de......
-
Punishment Phase
...investigation; rather the trial judge can find the defendant guilty, not guilty, or guilty of a lesser included offense. Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d ). §20:93.2 Contents of Report The report must contain a proposed client supervision plan de......