Andre Deshawn James v. The State of Texas Appeal from 349th District Court of Houston County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-23-00058-CR ANDRE DESHAWN JAMES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 349th District Court Houston County, Texas Trial Court No. 20CR-180 Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin MEMORANDUM OPINION Andre Deshawn James pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a knife), a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (Supp.). Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, James pled true to the State’s punishment enhancement allegation (a prior conviction for injury to a disabled person and retaliation) and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for seven years. Seven months later, the State alleged that James violated nine terms and conditions of his community supervision. Consequently, it filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of James’s guilt. The trial court found five of the allegations in the State’s motion “true,” adjudicated James’s guilt, and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. In his sole point of error on appeal, James argues that the trial court’s sentence is grossly disproportionate to his offense and constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13, of the Texas Constitution.1 We find this issue unpreserved. “A party is not excused from the procedural requirements for objecting at trial merely because an error involves a constitutional right.” Jimenez v. State, 32 S.W.3d 233, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). “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.” 1 Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We find no difference between the precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and this Court on the relevant issues in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 Davis v. State, 614 S.W.3d 223, 232 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020, no pet.) (quoting Navarro v. State, 588 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, no pet.)); Mason v. State, No. 12-1900006-CR, 2020 WL 975362, at *5 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 28, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see Darnell v. State, No. 12-19-00029-CR, 2019 WL 2461654, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 31, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). A review of the record shows that James lodged no complaint about his sentence, including constitutionality or disproportionality, at trial. Also, he filed no motion for new trial raising this issue. Because he did not present it to the trial court, we find James’s sole point of error unpreserved for our review. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Jeff Rambin Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: July 20, 2023 July 28, 2023 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.
