Raymond Philip Milligan v. the State of Texas

No. 01-24-00486-CR · Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas · March 19, 2026 · No. 01-24-00486-CR

Summary

The First Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Raymond Philip Milligan’s five-year prison sentences for three counts of sexual assault of a child following his open guilty plea. The court held that Milligan failed to preserve his challenges concerning the trial court’s consideration of an affirmative defense and statements made by the prosecutor during the sentencing hearing. Alternatively, the court concluded that the sentence was within the statutory range and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Court
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas
Writing for the Court
Amparo “Amy” Guerra; Chief Justice Adams; Justice Guerra; Justice Guiney
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas
Decision date
March 19, 2026
Docket number
01-24-00486-CR
Procedural posture
After pleading guilty to three counts of sexual assault of a child and receiving a five-year prison sentence, appellant appealed only the punishment portion of the judgment.
Standard of review
Preservation issues are reviewed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1. The assessment of punishment is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Unpublished, nonprecedential memorandum opinion; the court directed that it not be published under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.2(b).
Parties
Raymond Philip Milligan v. The State of Texas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingpreservation of errorstandard of reviewcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

Criminal lawCriminal procedureAppellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider or understand an affirmative defense that appellant conceded was inapplicable when assessing punishment.
  2. Whether appellant preserved his challenge to statements made by the prosecutor during opening and closing arguments at the sentencing hearing.

Holdings

  1. A criminal defendant must timely and specifically object to an allegedly disproportionate or otherwise erroneous sentence in the trial court or in a post-trial motion to preserve the complaint for appellate review; Milligan failed to do so.
  2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing five years' imprisonment and by failing to consider a concededly inapplicable affirmative defense.
  3. Appellant's challenge to statements made by the prosecutor during opening statement and closing argument was not preserved because appellant made no timely and specific objection in the trial court.

Key quotations

Except in the rare case of a meritorious Eighth Amendment gross-proportionality challenge, “punishment that falls within the legislatively prescribed range, and that is based upon the sentencer’s informed normative judgment, is unassailable on appeal.” (5)
A party properly preserves his complaint for appellate review by making a timely and specific request, objection, or motion in the trial court. (3)

Factual background

Milligan was approximately four years and nine months older than the fourteen-year-old complainant when the charged sexual assaults occurred. He pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault of a child, and the trial court held a sentencing hearing at which the complainant testified about Milligan's knowledge of her age and concern about their relationship being discovered. The trial court imposed five years' imprisonment, which was within the two-to-twenty-year range for a second-degree felony.

Procedural history

Milligan was indicted on six counts of sexual assault of a child and later entered an open guilty plea to three counts. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court assessed five years' imprisonment. Milligan filed a timely appeal challenging the punishment assessment and statements made by the State during the sentencing hearing; the court of appeals affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…