DO NOT PUBLISH
GREG NEELEY, Justice.
Jimmy Andrew Davis, Jr. appeals his convictions for aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and kidnapping. In one issue, Appellant argues that his sentences are grossly disproportionate to his offenses. We affirm.
Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and aggravated kidnapping. He pleaded "not guilty," and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
At trial, the evidence showed that Ashley Webb was homeless and Appellant allowed her to stay at a mobile home he shared with two other roommates. After Webb refused Appellant's repeated sexual advances, Appellant struck Webb with his fist, rendering her unconscious. When Webb awoke, her face was so swollen that she could not talk, and two of her teeth were detached and lying inside her mouth. Thereafter, Appellant kept Webb in a bedroom, locked from the outside, and told her that she could not leave. Eventually, after waking up in the room and seeing Appellant sleeping, Webb found a hidden key to the door and escaped.
Webb was subsequently treated for a fractured jaw and shattered cheekbone. Doctors performed reconstructive surgery to her face and mouth and placed titanium plates in the right side of her face. Webb's jaw was wired shut for six months. At the time of trial, she was still unable to fully open her mouth.
Ultimately, the jury found Appellant "guilty" of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and kidnapping, enhanced by two prior felonies, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for life in each case. This appeal followed.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the trial court violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by sentencing him to imprisonment for life. See U.S. CONST. amend. VIII; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13. Specifically, he contends that a life sentence is grossly disproportionate to his offense, considering the facts and circumstances of the offense and in comparison with sentences imposed on other defendants for the same offense. See
The State argues that Appellant failed to preserve error for our review by a timely objection or motion in the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. When a defendant fails to object to the disproportionality of his sentence in the trial court, he forfeits such error on appeal. See
Here, Appellant did not object in the trial court to the disproportionality of his sentences. Therefore, any error in this regard has been forfeited. See
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. This provision was made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The legislature is vested with the power to define crimes and prescribe penalties. See
In this case, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and kidnapping, enhanced, the punishment range for which is twenty-five to ninety-nine years or life in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.33(a), 12.34(a), 12.42(d), 20.03, 22.02 (West 2011 & Supp. 2016). Thus, the sentence imposed by the trial court falls within the range set forth by the legislature. Therefore, the punishment is not prohibited as cruel, unusual, or excessive per se.
Nonetheless, Appellant contends that his sentence is "extremely disproportionate." Under the three part test originally set forth in
We first must determine whether Appellant's sentence is grossly disproportionate. In so doing, we are guided by the holding in
In the case at hand, the offense committed by Appellant—aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and kidnapping—is more severe than the combination of offenses committed by the appellant in
Accordingly, we overrule Appellant's sole issue.
Having overruled Appellant's sole issue, we
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below