Steven Anthony Canales v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-03-00570-CR
Steven Anthony CANALES,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2002-CR-6560-W
Honorable James Barlow, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 14, 2004

AFFIRMED

Steven Anthony Canales was charged with possession of a controlled substance. Canales pleaded no contest to the alleged offense pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of two years. The State subsequently filed a motion to enter adjudication of guilt and revoke community supervision. At the hearing on the State's motion, Canales pleaded true to all of the allegations in the State's motion except one. The trial court proceeded to adjudicate Canales's guilt, revoke his community supervision, and sentence him to a one-year term of imprisonment. In one issue, Canales complains that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 13 of the Texas Constitution.

As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial court by timely request, objection, or motion that stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Without proper preservation, even constitutional error may be waived. See Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Here, there is nothing in the record to indicate that appellant presented his complaint to the trial court. Canales did not complain about his sentence either at the punishment hearing or in a motion for new trial. Accordingly, we hold Canales has waived his appellate complaint. See Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex. Crim. App.1995).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Catherine Stone, Justice

Do Not Publish