Daniel Rios Hinojosa v. The State of Texas Appeal from 40th District Court of Ellis County (memorandum opinion by chief justice gray)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-15-00388-CR DANIEL RIOS HINOJOSA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 40th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 39522CR MEMORANDUM OPINION Daniel Rios Hinojosa was convicted of the offense of “Continuous Sexual Abuse of Young Child” and sentenced to 75 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02 (West 2011). In two issues, Hinojosa complains that his sentence violates his constitutional rights pursuant to the United States and Texas Constitutions because the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime and inappropriate as applied to him. Because his complaints are not preserved, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. At trial, Hinojosa never objected to the sentence he received nor did he file a motion for new trial on the basis that his sentence violated the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution. See U.S. CONST. AMEND. VIII; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13. An objection on this basis must be made to the trial court in order to be preserved. Because no such objection was made, we find that Hinojosa's complaints were not preserved for our review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (reviewing court will not consider errors, even of constitutional magnitude, not called to the trial court's attention). See also Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that complaint relating to constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was waived when no objection on this basis was made in trial court). Accordingly, Hinojosa's first and second issues are overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed November 30, 2016 Do not publish [CRPM] Hinojosa v. State Page 2
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.
