Opinion
No. 05-09-01436-CR
Opinion Filed July 30, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F09-46771-RP.
Before Justices O'NEILL, FRANCIS, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kenneth Dean Crouch appeals his conviction for DWI-third offense. In two issues, appellant contends the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense and inappropriate to the offender in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. Art. I, § 13. We affirm. The background of the case 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 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to DWI-third offense. Appellant also pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph contained in the indictment. After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraph true, the trial court assessed punishment at twelve years' imprisonment and a $1500 fine. Appellant contends the sentence is grossly disproportionate and excessive because he deserved probation and treatment for his longstanding alcohol addiction rather than a long prison sentence. The State responds that appellant failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review, and the sentence is not disproportionate to the offense and circumstances. Appellant did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in a 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.) (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 sentence, and he did not file a motion for new trial. 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 this case, the trial court imposed punishment within the statutory range for the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.34, 49.04(a), 49.09(b)(2) (Vernon 2003 Supp. 2009); see also 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 resolve appellant's two issues against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.