Logan Tyler Blanton v. the State of Texas

No. 07-25-00312-CR · Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo · April 15, 2026 · No. No. 07-25-00312-CR

Summary

The Seventh District Court of Appeals of Texas at Amarillo affirmed Logan Tyler Blanton’s convictions and concurrent thirty-year sentences for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The court held that Blanton failed to preserve his challenges to the severity and proportionality of his sentences and noted that the sentences fell within the applicable statutory range.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Parker, C.J.; Doss, J.; Yarbrough, J.
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Decision date
April 15, 2026
Docket number
No. 07-25-00312-CR
Procedural posture
Appeal from convictions and concurrent thirty-year sentences for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child.
Standard of review
Sentencing complaints are reviewed for preservation of error; a timely, specific objection or other appropriate request is required. A sentence within the statutory range is generally not subject to an excessiveness challenge.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Logan Tyler Blanton v. The State of Texas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingpreservation of errorstandard of reviewappellate procedurecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court failed to adequately consider Blanton's intellectual and psychological limitations in imposing sentence.
  2. Whether the concurrent thirty-year sentences were inappropriate in light of Blanton's low risk of recidivism and compliance with bond conditions.
  3. Whether the sentences were disproportionate to the offenses.
  4. Whether Blanton preserved his sentencing-severity and disproportionality complaints for appellate review.

Holdings

  1. A defendant may not obtain appellate review of complaints concerning the severity or disproportionality of a sentence when the defendant failed to make a timely, specific objection or otherwise raise the complaint in the trial court; Blanton therefore failed to preserve these complaints.
  2. Even if the sentencing complaints had been preserved, a sentence that falls within the applicable statutory range is generally not subject to an excessiveness challenge.

Key quotations

To preserve error for appellate review, the complaining party must make a timely, specific objection.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Factual background

In March 2025, Blanton pleaded guilty to two first-degree felony aggravated-sexual-assault-of-a-child offenses. At the September 2025 sentencing hearing, the State introduced the presentence investigation report, and Blanton presented testimony from his community supervision officer. His counsel emphasized that he was assessed as a low-to-moderate risk to reoffend and had scored in the lower limits of the below-average range on an intellectual assessment. The trial court imposed concurrent thirty-year prison terms on the two counts.

Procedural history

Blanton pleaded guilty to two first-degree felony aggravated-sexual-assault charges in March 2025. After a September 2025 sentencing hearing, the 271st District Court of Jack County sentenced him to thirty years' imprisonment on each count, concurrently. He appealed, challenging the severity and alleged disproportionality of his sentences; the State filed no brief. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the complaints were not preserved and that, alternatively, the sentences were within the statutory range.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…