Opinion
Nos. 05-09-00314-CR, 05-09-00315-CR
Opinion Filed November 25, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-52530-NI, F07-52531-NI.
Before Justices MOSELEY, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Marcus Keith Brownlee waived a jury and pleaded guilty to two offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years. After hearing testimony from a treating psychiatrist, a detective, appellant's stepfather, and appellant, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-eight years' imprisonment. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to prison. We affirm the trial court's judgments. The background of these cases and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated the objectives of the Texas Penal Code by sentencing him to prison, in each case, rather than placing him on probation. Appellant asserts the sentences were not necessary to prevent the recurrence of any criminal behavior. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the record does not support his claims. Appellant did not complain about the sentences either at the time they were imposed or in his motions for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (for error to be preserved for appeal, the record must show appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion). After sentencing, appellant did not object to the sentences, and his motions for new trial complained that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for our review. Even if appellant had preserved error, however, his arguments still fail. As a general rule, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for the offense is not excessive or unconstitutionally cruel or unusual. Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). In these cases, the trial court imposed punishment within the statutory range for the offenses. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 22.021(a)(B)(i) (Vernon 2003 Supp. 2009). We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the sentences. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (as long as a sentence is within the proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal). We overrule appellant's sole issue on appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgments.