Matthew Ramos v. the State of Texas

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00338-CR

MATTHEW RAMOS,
Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

From the 443rd District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 47979CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Matthew Ramos, pled guilty to one count of online solicitation of a

minor, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 33.021(b), (f). After a

punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced Ramos to ten years in prison. On appeal,

Ramos asserts that his sentence is grossly disproportionate in violation of the United

States and Texas Constitutions, and that the judgment should be modified to accurately

reflect that Ramos did not waive his right to appeal his sentence. See U.S. CONST. amend.
VIII; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13; TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). We modify the judgment and affirm

as modified.

RAMOS’S GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE SENTENCE COMPLAINTS

In his first and second issues on appeal, Ramos contends that his sentence was

“grossly disproportionate to the crimes and inappropriate to the offender” in violation of

the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 13 of the

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

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); 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, Ramos did not assert his disproportionate-sentence

claim. When asked by the trial court if there was any legal reason why sentence should

not be imposed, counsel stated, “No legal reason, Your Honor.” Furthermore, Ramos did

not raise a disproportionate-sentence claim in a motion for new trial or otherwise present

a post-trial objection to the imposed sentence. Therefore, we conclude that Ramos did

not properly preserve his disproportionate-sentence complaints for review. See TEX. R.

Ramos v. State Page 2
APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Rhoades, 934 S.W.2d at 120; see also Noland, 264 S.W.3d at 151.

Accordingly, we overrule Ramos’s first and second issues on appeal.

MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT

In his third issue on appeal, Ramos asserts that the judgment should be reformed

to reflect that he did not waive his right to appeal his sentence and that permission to

appeal the sentence was granted by the trial court. The State agrees. At Ramos’s plea

hearing, the trial court explained, “…the plea part you cannot appeal, but you can appeal

when we do our sentencing, okay?” Further, the trial court completed two certifications

of the defendant’s right to appeal. The certification signed July 18, 2023 indicates that

Ramos was granted permission to appeal “except for the plea of guilty,” and the

certification signed September 21, 2023 grants Ramos the right to appeal “for sentencing

only.”

An appellate court has the authority to reform a judgment to speak the truth when

it has the information to do so. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); see also Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d

26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we modify the judgment to reflect that

Ramos did not waive his right to appeal his sentence and that the trial court granted

Ramos permission to appeal his sentence.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we modify the judgment to reflect that Ramos did not

waive his right to appeal his sentence and that the trial court granted Ramos permission

to appeal his sentence, and we affirm the judgment as modified.

Ramos v. State Page 3
STEVE SMITH
Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed as modified
Opinion delivered and filed July 25, 2024
[CR25]

Ramos v. State Page 4