Opinion
No. 13-03-00063-CR
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed July 21, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On appeal from the 268th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas.
Before Chief Justice VALDEZ and Justices, HINOJOSA and RODRIGUEZ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant, George Guo, pleaded guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault. The trial court found appellant guilty and, in accordance with the plea agreement, assessed appellant's punishment at fourteen years' imprisonment. The trial court ordered that appellant's sentence in this case run consecutively with any sentence imposed prior to the date of this sentence. The trial court has certified that this "is a plea-bargain case, but the trial court has given permission to appeal, and the defendant has the right of appeal." See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). By a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court's cumulation order is void because it lacks sufficient detail. We affirm. We must first determine whether appellant preserved error for appellate review. In order to preserve error for appellate review, a party must present a timely objection to the trial court, state with sufficient specificity the grounds for the objection, and obtain a ruling. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). An appellant may not complain of error regarding his sentence or punishment if he has failed to object or otherwise raise error in the trial court. Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986); Ramirez v. State, 89 S.W.3d 222, 231 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). The record reflects that appellant did not object to the cumulation order at trial. Although appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the cumulation order after sentencing, he failed to object to the sufficiency of the cumulation order. Because no objection or complaint of error was raised in the trial court concerning appellant's cumulative sentence, we hold he waived his right to object on appeal. Appellant's sole point of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
We recognize that Texas courts have held that an improper cumulation order is, in essence, a void sentence, and such error cannot be waived. See Laporte v. State, 840 S.W.2d 412, 415 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Jackson v. State, 157 S.W.3d 514, 517 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.); Hendrix v. State, 150 S.W.3d 839, 852 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). However, those cases involve the cumulation of sentences that arise out of a "single criminal episode" prosecuted in a "single criminal action." See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 3.03 (Vernon 2003); see also Duran v. State, 844 S.W.2d 745, 746 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (holding Laporte not controlling because no evidence that single criminal action occurred).