Opinion
No. 05-05-01089-CR
Opinion issued March 15, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F03-50787-HM. Affirmed.
Before Justices MORRIS, MOSELEY, and FITZGERALD.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this case, the trial court originally deferred adjudicating Arthur Roy Morrison's guilt for the offense of criminal mischief, placing him on two years' community supervision. The State later moved to proceed with adjudication of guilt, alleging appellant violated the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced him to one year's confinement in a state jail facility. In two issues, appellant contends the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm the trial court's judgment. 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 47.1 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. Appellant argues in his two issues that the one-year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense and violates the prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment in both the United States and the Texas Constitution. See U.S. Const. Amends. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. Art. I § 13. Appellant did not complain about his 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. Because appellant did not raise his cruel and unusual punishment claims at trial, they are waived on appeal. We resolve appellant's two issues against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.