Opinion issued September 16, 2004

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-03-01255-CR

ADRIAN KEVON HARDY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

 Harris County, Texas

                                         Trial Court Cause No. 950321

MEMORANDUM OPINION

           Appellant, Adrian Kevon Hardy, pleaded guilty to the offense of murder without an agreed recommendation as to punishment. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §19.02 (Vernon 2003). After appellant had pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph alleging a prior felony conviction for automobile theft, the trial court assessed his punishment at 35 years’ confinement. We address whether appellant preserved his complaint that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to his crime, constituting cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII. We affirm.

Preservation of Error

          The State contends that appellant waived any error as to his punishment’s being disproportionate because he failed to raise his objection to the punishment severity at trial.

          Constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, may be waived. See Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that appellant waived point of error concerning cruel and unusual punishment by failing to object at trial). At trial, appellant never objected to the severity of his punishment. Appellant asserts that, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a)(1)(A), it was not necessary for him to object to the severity of his punishment because punishment was the only issue for the court to consider; thus, his complaint was apparent from the context of the case. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). Although rule 33.1(a)(1)(A) provides that an explanation of the grounds for the ruling sought by the complaining party is not required when “the specific grounds [are] apparent from the context,” rule 33.1(a)(1) nevertheless requires that the complaint be “made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion.” Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1). In other words, a party must object, but an explanation of the grounds of that objection may not be necessary, depending on the context in which the objection is made. Because appellant did not object to the severity of his punishment, appellant failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review. Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301-02 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d).

          We overrule appellant’s sole point of error. 

Conclusion

          We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                              Tim Taft

                                                             Justice

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Bland.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).