Vasquez, Jesus v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 1st District Court of Appeals » 2002 » Vasquez, Jesus v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 01-01-01059-CR

Case Date: 12/05/2002

Plaintiff: Vasquez, Jesus

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County

Preview:Vasquez, Jesus v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
174th District Court of Harris County
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-01-01059-CR
JESUS VASQUEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 174th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 867300
O P I N I O N
Appellant pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation to the felony offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI)
on July 25, 2001. A pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report was ordered and filed with the trial court on September 12,
2001. On September 18, 2001, the trial court held a sentencing hearing, found appellant guilty, and assessed
punishment at three years. We affirm.
PSI
In his first and second points of error, appellant contends that the trial court s review of the PSI report before a
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/78490.html[8/20/2013 8:15:31 PM]

determination of guilt violated his due process rights under the Texas and United States Constitutions. See Tex. Const.
art. I, 19; U.S. Const. amend. V, XIV.
The PSI report in this case was neither ordered nor reviewed until after appellant entered a plea of guilty, signed a
judicial confession, and stipulated to the evidence of his guilt. The trial court s review of the PSI report was expressly
authorized by statute. Article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the trial court to inspect a PSI report
after a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is entered. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 9(c)(1) (Vernon Supp.
2002); see Wissinger v. State, 702 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, pet. ref d).
We overrule the first and second points of error.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
In his third and fourth points of error, appellant contends that his three-year sentence imposes cruel and unusual
punishment under the United States and Texas Constitutions. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Tex. Const. art. I, 13.
To preserve error for appellate review, the complaining party must make a timely, specific objection, at the earliest
opportunity, and obtain an adverse ruling. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Appellant did not object at the sentencing hearing
to his sentence on the basis of cruel or unusual punishment. Nor did he raise this argument in a post-trial motion.
Accordingly, he has waived this point of error. See Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex. App. Houston [14th
Dist.] 2001, pet. ref d);Steadman v. State, 31 S.W.3d 738, 742 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref d).
We overrule the third and fourth points of error.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Adele Hedges
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Keyes, and Duggan. //
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/78490.html[8/20/2013 8:15:31 PM]

Download 78490.pdf