Opinion
Nos. 05-04-00973-CR, 05-04-00974-CR
Opinion Filed September 14, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F04-25911-RV, F04-25913-JV. Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, MOSELEY, and LANG-MIERS.
OPINION
Timothy Johnson appeals his convictions for assault of a public servant and theft from an elderly person. In each case, appellant entered an open plea of guilty and pleas of true to two enhancement paragraphs. The trial court assessed punishment at forty years confinement for each offense. Appellant's attorney filed briefs in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The briefs present a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the briefs to appellant. Appellant filed a short pro se response contending that drug treatment would have been a more appropriate sentence for his offense in light of his progress while out on parole and the role he alleges drugs played in causing his offenses. By not objecting to the sentences at the time they were imposed or in a motion for new trial, appellant has waived any challenges to the sentences as grossly disproportionate to the offenses or as being cruel and unusual punishment. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1); Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). Moreover, even if appellant had preserved error, the trial court did not err in assessing punishment. We review the trial court's determination of the appropriate punishment for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). Generally, punishments assessed within the proper range will not be disturbed on appeal. Id. Appellant's sentences fall in the middle of the enhanced punishment ranges for the offenses. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 12.42(d), 22.01(b)(1), 31.03 (e)(4)(B), (f)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). We conclude appellant's dissatisfaction with his sentence does not raise an arguable issue for appeal. We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's response. We agree with counsel that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. We affirm the trial court's judgments.