v.
State
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-01113-CR
———————————
DAVID WILLIAM HALLENE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 176th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1303491
MEMORANDUM OPINION
David William Hallene was indicted for continuous sexual abuse of a child, then plead guilty to the lesser offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child,1 so that the trial court might have an opportunity to cure any error.” Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301–02 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, writ ref’d).
The failure to object when the sentence is assessed or to file a motion for new trial alleging a cruel and unusual sentence waives error. See id. (holding claim of cruel and usual punishment could not be raised for first time on appeal); Perez, 908 S.W.2d at 30 (holding that failure to raise constitutional claim through objection waived error); Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (stating that defendant waived error because argument presented for first time on appeal); Wynn v. State, 219 S.W.3d 54, 61 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (holding that defendant’s failure to object that punishment was cruel and unusual waived error); Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d) (holding defendant failed to preserve Eighth Amendment complaint for appeal).
When the trial court pronounced the 40 year sentence at the conclusion of the punishment hearing, no objection was lodged and no subsequent motion for new trial was filed to bring the issue to the trial court’s attention. Accordingly, we hold that Hallene waived the claim of error.
Conclusion
Having concluded that Hallene failed to preserve his sole appellate issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Harvey Brown Justice Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).