Johnny Brian Odoms v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 of Tarrant County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-11-00530-CR JOHNNY BRIAN ODOMS APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Johnny Brian Odoms pled guilty to fraudulent use of identifying information, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years confinement. In a single issue, Appellant argues that his sentence violates the state and federal 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. constitutional prohibitions against grossly disproportionate sentences.2 We affirm. In Kim v. State, this court stated the following: It is axiomatic that errors that are asserted on the part of the trial court must generally be brought to the trial court s attention in order to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct the error, if any. To preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence is grossly disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual punishment, a defendant must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired. Kim s complaint about the alleged disproportionality of his sentence was not raised at the time it was imposed or in a motion for new trial. Therefore, he preserved nothing for our review. 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref d) (citations omitted). We reaffirmed Kim s holding in Russell v. State, 341 S.W.3d 526, 527 28 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2011, no pet.). Similarly, here, Appellant did not assert any objection when the trial court sentenced him to ten years confinement, nor did he file a motion for new trial thereby raising the disproportionality argument that he now asserts in this appeal. Consequently, we hold that Appellant has failed to preserve this issue for our review. See id.; Laboriel-Guity v. State, 336 S.W.3d 754, 756 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2011, pet. ref d); Kim, 283 S.W.3d at 475; Wynn v. State, 219 S.W.3d 54, 61 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Smith v. State, 10 S.W.3d 48, 2 Fraudulent use of identifying information is a second-degree felony, punishable by a term of imprisonment of not more than twenty years or less than two years. Tex. Penal Code Ann. ยงยง 12.33(a) (West 2011), 32.51(c)(3) (West Supp. 2012). 2 49 (Tex. App. Texarkana 1999, no pet.); see also Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) ( As a general rule, an appellant may not assert error pertaining to his sentence or punishment where he failed to object or otherwise raise such error in the trial court. ). We overrule Appellant s sole issue and affirm the trial court s judgment. LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: October 11, 2012 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
