Francisco Javier Guerrero v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 124th District Court of Gregg County

NO. 12-02-00252-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

FRANCISCO JAVIER GUERRERO,

 
APPEAL FROM THE 124TH

APPELLANT

 

V.

 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
GREGG COUNTY, TEXASMEMORANDUM OPINION

Francisco J. Guerrero ("Appellant") appeals the trial court's sentence imposed following the revocation of his deferred adjudication probation. Appellant raises two issues on appeal. We affirm.

 

Background

Appellant was indicted for murder. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant pleaded guilty as charged. The trial court deferred adjudicating Appellant guilty and sentenced Appellant to probation for ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's probation and proceed to final adjudication, arguing that Appellant had violated the terms of his probation by driving while intoxicated. Following a hearing, the trial court found the allegations in the State's motion to be true, revoked Appellant's probation, proceeded to adjudicate Appellant guilty of murder, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

 

Requisites of Briefs

In issues one and two, Appellant argues that (1) his sentence was excessive because (a) the evidence did not justify a life sentence and (b) Texas jurisprudence lacks a consistent punishment standard; and that (2) the State urged the trial court to consider evidence outside of the record. The appellant's brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Moreover, in order to adequately brief a constitutional issue, the appellant must proffer specific arguments and authorities supporting his contentions under the constitution. See Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 558 (Tex. Crim. App.1995); Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415, 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Robinson v. State, 851 S.W.2d 216, 222 n. 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Morehead v. State, 807 S.W.2d 577, 579 n. 1 (Tex. Crim. App.1991); Hicks v. State, 15 S.W.3d 626, 631 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd.). Otherwise his contentions are inadequately briefed. Id. Failure to adequately brief an issue results in waiver. See Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

In the case at hand, Appellant fails to cite any authority to support his contentions related to either of his issues. With respect to his first issue, Appellant argues that "Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees of the U.S. Constitution are surely offended here" and that "this sequence of adjudication and disposition[,] with virtually unfettered and unguided discretion by the trial court on both the adjudication of guilt and the punishment assessed[,] violates Equal Protection and Due Process provisions of the U.S. Constitution and the Due Course of Law provisions of the Texas Constitution." However, Appellant fails to proffer any authorities supporting his constitutional contentions. (1) As such, we hold that Appellant by failing to adequately brief issues one and two, has waived these issues on appeal. Appellant's issues one and two are overruled.

 

Conclusion

Having overruled Appellant's issues one and two, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

SAM GRIFFITH

Justice

Opinion delivered August 27, 2003.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1. Even had Appellant cited authority, the result would not change. We note that Appellant made no objection to the trial court raising issues of due process and equal protection and has, therefore, waived such issues on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.