Opinion
No. 05-06-00071-CR
Opinion Filed July 23, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F01-23721-KN.
Before Justices MOSELEY, O'NEILL, and FITZGERALD.
OPINION
Jason Lamont Craddock waived a jury and pled guilty to possession of cocaine in an amount of one gram or more, but less than four grams. See Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (c) (Vernon 2003). The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on three years' community supervision, and assessed a $ 1500 fine. The State later moved to proceed with adjudicating guilt, alleging appellant violated the terms of his community supervision. The trial court granted the motion, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at three years' imprisonment. In three issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision and the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm. In his first issue, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. Appellant characterizes his complaint as involving regular community supervision. However, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision, not regular community supervision. Appellant's complaint challenges the trial court's decision to adjudicate guilt, which is not permitted. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2006); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Because we do not have jurisdiction over this issue, we dismiss it. In his second and third issues, appellant argues the trial court imposed a disproportionate sentence in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 13. However, appellant did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in his motion 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.). Even constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, may be waived. Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Castaneda, 135 S.W.3d at 723. Moreover, there is no evidence the sentence is cruel or unusual, and it is within the statutory punishment range for the offense. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 12.33, 12.35; Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). We resolve appellant's issues against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.