Opinion
Nos.05-06-01048-CR, 05-06-01049-CR, 05-06-01050-CR
Opinion Filed April 27, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F05-27692-QN, F05-27693-QN, F05-27721-QN.
Before Justices Morris, Francis, and Mazzant.
OPINION
Brian Kent Hanlan waived a jury and pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of fraudulent identification in each case. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 32.51 (Vernon Supp. 2006). The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at six years' imprisonment and a $1000 fine in each case. In two issues, appellant contends the sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm the trial court's judgments. Appellant argues the trial court imposed grossly disproportionate and inappropriate sentences in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 13. Appellant asserts his criminal history is a result of his drug use, and he wanted probation and drug treatment. The State responds that appellant did not preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the sentences do not violate the United States or Texas Constitution. 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.). 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. Because appellant has not preserved his complaints, we resolve his issues against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.