In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-03-00222-CR

______________________________

JOHN ABDULLAH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court No. F03-01163-VK

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          John Abdullah appeals from his conviction on his guilty plea for aggravated robbery. Abdullah pled true to an enhancement paragraph, and the court assessed punishment at thirty years' imprisonment.

          Abdullah raises only one contention of error: that the trial court erred by failing to allow him to object to a presentence investigation (PSI) report. As pointed out by Abdullah, the trial court is required to allow a defendant or his or her attorney to comment on a PSI report and, with approval of the court, to introduce evidence alleging factual inaccuracies. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 9(d), (e) (Vernon Supp. 2004).

          This complaint, as with most others, must be brought to the trial court's attention at a time when the court can take action to correct any claimed shortfall. If it is not brought to the court's attention, the claim of error has not been preserved for appellate review. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); see Smith v. State, 91 S.W.3d 407, 409 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.). The complaint was not brought to the court's attention at any point in these proceedings. The claim of error has not been preserved for us to review.

          We affirm the judgment.

                                                                           Donald R. Ross

                                                                           Justice

Date Submitted:      June 1, 2004

Date Decided:         June 10, 2004

Do Not Publish