Claudia Cortez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 209th District Court of Harris County (majority opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Opinion filed October 13, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ___________________ NO. 14-11-00432-CR ___________________ CLAUDIA CORTEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 209th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1121765 OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to murder. The trial court sentenced appellant on May 13, 2011, to confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. In two issues, appellant claims her sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offense underlying the conviction, resulting in cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the United States and Texas constitutions. 1 1 To preserve for appellate review a Appellant does not contest that her sentence was within the applicable statutory range. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ยงยง 12.32 and 19.02(b)(1) (West 2011). 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. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a); Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (defendant waived any error because he presented his argument for first time on appeal); Jagaroo v. State, 180 S.W.3d 793, 802 (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd) (defendant did not raise complaints that his sentences violated his state and federal rights against cruel and unusual punishment in the trial court, and thus failed to preserve them for appellate review). The claim presented on appeal was not raised in a post-verdict motion filed with the trial court. In her brief appellant claims she objected to the severity of the sentence in the trial court by objecting to imposition of a life sentence. The record reflects the trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at life. The trial court then asked appellant if she had anything to say before sentence was pronounced and appellant stated, Just forgive me. Please don t give me life. Appellant s plea for mercy is not an objection to the sentence assessed. More importantly, appellant did not state the legal basis for the complaint raised on appeal. See Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). At no time, nor in any manner, did appellant argue to the trial court that her sentence violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution or section 13 of the Texas Constitution. Accordingly, nothing is preserved for our review. See Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151-52 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref d). (reference to an illegal or oppressive verdict in heading of motion for new trial appealed to trial court s discretion to grant a new trial and did not preserve defendant s Eighth Amendment complaint for review). 2 We overrule appellant s issues and affirm the trial court's judgment. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally. Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 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.
