Frank Leon Thompson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 71st District Court of Harrison County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-09-00011-CR ______________________________ FRANK LEON THOMPSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 71st Judicial District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 08-0343X Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter MEMORANDUM OPINION Frank Leon Thompson has appealed from his jury conviction for the offense of burglary of a habitation. The jury assessed punishment at twenty years' imprisonment. On appeal, Coleman contends that his sentence is disproportionate to the crime, citing Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), and Davis v. State, 905 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. App. Texarkana 1995, pet. ref'd). To preserve such complaint for appellate review, Thompson must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the specific grounds for the desired ruling, or the complaint must be apparent from the context. See TEX . R. APP . P. 33.1(a)(1); Harrison v. State, 187 S.W.3d 429, 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Williams v. State, 191 S.W.3d 242, 262 (Tex. App. Austin 2006, no pet.) (claims of cruel and unusual punishment must be presented in timely manner); Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd) (failure to complain to trial court that sentences were cruel and unusual waived claim of error for appellate review). We have reviewed the records of the trial proceeding. No relevant request, objection, or motion was made. And, while this Court has held that a motion for new trial is an appropriate way to preserve this type of claim for review (see Williamson v. State, 175 S.W.3d 522, 523 24 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2005, no pet.); Delacruz v. State, 167 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2005, no pet.)), no motion for new trial was filed. Thompson has not preserved such an issue for appeal. 2 Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Jack Carter Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: March 20, 2009 March 23, 2009 Do Not Publish 3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.
