Logan Tyler Blanton v. the State of Texas

In The
                                    Court of Appeals
                           Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                            No. 07-25-00312-CR


                             LOGAN TYLER BLANTON, APPELLANT

                                                      V.

                                 THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                               On Appeal from the 271st District Court
                                         Jack County, Texas 1
                      Trial Court No. 5124, Honorable Brock R. Smith, Presiding

                                              April 15, 2026
                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                       Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

          Logan Tyler Blanton, Appellant, was convicted on two counts of aggravated sexual

assault of a child. 2 In this appeal, he raises three issues challenging his sentences. We

affirm.




          1 This cause was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals.It was transferred to this Court by
a docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. In the event
of any conflict, we apply the transferor court’s case law. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
          2 TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.021(a)(2)(B).
                                       BACKGROUND


       Because Appellant challenges only his sentences, we will limit our review to the

facts relevant to that issue. In March of 2025, Appellant pleaded guilty to the charged

offenses, which are first-degree felonies. The statutory range of punishment for a first-

degree felony is confinement for not more than ninety-nine years or less than five years,

or life. TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.32(a). The trial court may also assess a fine. Id. § 12.32(b).

The hearing on sentencing was held in September of 2025. At the hearing, the State

offered the presentence investigation report as evidence. Appellant presented testimony

from his community supervision officer. Appellant’s counsel highlighted the conclusions

that Appellant presented a low/moderate risk to reoffend and that Appellant scored within

the lower limits of the below average range in the intellectual assessment. The trial court

sentenced Appellant to a thirty-year term of imprisonment on each count, to run

concurrently. Appellant timely filed this appeal. The State did not file a brief.


                                         ANALYSIS


       Appellant raises three related issues on appeal. By his first issue, Appellant

contends that the trial court failed to adequately consider his intellectual and

psychological limitations during sentencing. By his second, he asserts that his sentences

are inappropriate given evidence of his low risk of recidivism and his compliance with

bond conditions. Lastly, Appellant claims that his sentences are disproportionate to his

offenses. In sum, all of Appellant’s arguments assert that the trial court abused its

discretion by sentencing him to thirty years’ incarceration rather than a more lenient

sentence.

                                             2
       As a general rule, an appellant may not assert error pertaining to the severity of

his sentence or punishment where he did not object or otherwise raise such an error in

the trial court. Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). To

preserve error for appellate review, the complaining party must make a timely, specific

objection. Hull v. State, 67 S.W.3d 215, 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see TEX. R. APP. P.

33.1(a) (prerequisites for raising complaint for appellate review include timely request,

objection, or motion, and trial court ruling on such request, objection, or motion). The

record reflects that Appellant did not object to the alleged severity of his punishment or

the alleged disproportionality of his sentences at trial, nor did he raise his complaints in a

motion for new trial. Therefore, Appellant’s complaints have not been preserved for

review.


       Even if Appellant had preserved error, we note that nothing, other than Appellant’s

bare assertion, suggests that the trial judge did not consider the factors mentioned in

Appellant’s brief. Further, when a sentence falls within the statutory range of punishment,

as it does here, it is generally not subject to challenge for excessiveness. State v.

Simpson, 488 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).


                                        CONCLUSION


       We affirm the judgment of the trial court.



                                                         Judy C. Parker
                                                          Chief Justice


Do not publish.

                                              3