Arthur Oliver Sandoval v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 209th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 3, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ___________________ NO. 14-10-00570-CR NO. 14-10-00571-CR ___________________ ARTHUR OLIVER SANDOVAL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 209th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1229418 & 1229419 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to two offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a child. On May 21, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in each case, to run concurrently. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal in each case. In each case, appellant raises two issues. Appellant claims the trial court erred by imposing sentences grossly disproportionate to the offenses underlying the convictions resulting in cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13, of the Texas Constitution. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Tex. Const. art. I, § 13. Appellant s sentences fall on the low end of the applicable statutory range of five to 99 years or life. See Tex. Pen. Code § 12.32(a). The record does not reflect that in either case appellant objected to his sentence in the trial court at the time of sentencing or in any post-trial motion. To preserve error for appellate review that a sentence is disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual punishment, a party must present a timely request, objection or motion to the trial court, state the specific grounds for the objection, and obtain a ruling. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Hergert v. State, 197 S.W.3d 394, 399 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2006, no pet.); and Holley v. State, 167 S.W.3d 546, (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref d). Appellant has waived his complaints. We therefore overrule appellant s issues and in each case affirm the trial court s judgment. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and Jamison. Do not publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 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.
