Ryan Boyette v. the State of Texas

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-22-00433-CR

RYAN BOYETTE,
Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

From the 443rd District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 49045CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ryan Boyette, was convicted of failing to comply with sex offender

registration requirements, a second-degree felony. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.

62.102(a), (b)(3). The trial court sentenced Boyette to twelve years in prison.

In two issues on appeal, Boyette contends that his sentence was “grossly

disproportionate to the crime and inappropriate to the offender” in violation of the Eighth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 13 of the Texas

Constitution. See U.S. CONST. amend. VIII; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13. We affirm.

Boyette’s Disproportionate-Sentence Complaints

A disproportionate-sentence claim must be preserved for appellate review. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)

(noting that constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual

punishment, may be waived); Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)

(en banc); see also Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2007, pet. ref’d) (“[I]n order to preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence

is grossly disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual punishment, a defendant

must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific

grounds for the ruling desired.”)

At the punishment hearing, Boyette did not assert his disproportionate-sentence

claim. The trial court indicated that it was going to sentence Boyette to twelve years in

prison. And when asked if there was “[a]ny reason, defendant, why the Court should

not impose that sentence at this time,” defense counsel responded, “Defendant is not

aware of any, [Y]our Honor.” Furthermore, Boyette did not raise a disproportionate-

sentence claim in his motion for new trial or otherwise present a post-trial objection to

the imposed sentence. Therefore, we conclude that Boyette did not properly preserve his

complaints on appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Rhoades, 934 S.W.2d at 120; Mercado,

Boyette v. State Page 2
718 S.W.2d at 296; see also Noland, 264 S.W.3d at 151. Accordingly, we overrule both of

Boyette’s issues on appeal.

Conclusion

Having overruled both of Boyette’s issues on appeal, we affirm the judgment of

the trial court.

STEVE SMITH
Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed December 14, 2023
Do not publish
[CR25]

Boyette v. State Page 3