Opinion filed July 21, 2011

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-10-00291-CR

                                                    __________

                                 WILLIE JOHN KNOTT, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                      STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                   On Appeal from the 244th District Court

                                                             Ector County, Texas

                                                   Trial Court Cause No. C-30,707

                                            M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Willie John Knott appeals from his conviction by the trial court of aggravated sexual assault of a child after the trial court had revoked his community supervision.  The trial court revoked Knott’s community supervision, finding that he had violated one of the terms of that community supervision.  After reviewing a presentence investigation outlining that Knott had three prior felony convictions, the trial court assessed his punishment at life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and a $10,305 fine.  Knott urges in a single issue on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to hold a separate sentencing hearing following the adjudication of his guilt.  We affirm.

Knott correctly notes that he was entitled to a separate punishment hearing.  Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).  However, his right to such a hearing is a statutory right that can be waived.  Id.  Our record shows no request by Knott to present evidence regarding punishment, no objection to his having been prevented from doing so, and no motion for new trial showing that he had any such objection.  Consequently, he has failed to preserve error regarding his sole issue.  Id. 

Knott appears to argue that, because he had different appellate counsel than he had at the revocation hearing¸ he is raising this issue at the first possible point.  Although the record does reflect that Knott had different counsel at his revocation hearing than he does in this appeal, his contention that he was prevented in some way from presenting this issue to the trial court, thereby preserving the issue for this appeal, has no support in the record.  We overrule Knott’s sole issue on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                PER CURIAM

July 21, 2011

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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Hill, J.[1]