Opinion issued November 10, 2005

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-05-00067-CR

 CLINTON GARNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 965664

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Clinton Garner, pleaded guilty, with an agreed recommendation by the State, to the offense of driving while intoxicated and also pleaded true to two enhancements paragraphs for prior convictions for the same offense. The trial court found appellant guilty and placed him on community supervision for five years and assessed a $300 fine. After appellant violated the terms of his supervision, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the State’s motion without an agreed recommendation by the State as to punishment. The trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and assessed punishment at confinement for three years and a fine of $300. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

          Appellant, in two points of error, contends that the trial court erred in assessing punishment at three years confinement and a fine of $300 because the punishment violated his federal and state constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment.

          At the hearing on the Motion to Revoke Supervision, appellant did not object that the sentence imposed by the trial court violated either his state or federal constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment. “As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely . . . objection . . . that stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context.” Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). Even “constitutional error may be waived by failure to object at trial.” Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Failing to raise a specific objection that the punishment assessed violates one’s right against cruel and unusual punishment results in waiver of that issue on appeal. Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see also Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d) (holding same).

          Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s two points of error and affirm the judgment.

                                                             Sam Nuchia

                                                             Justice

Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Higley.

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