Opinion
Nos. 05-08-00203-CR, 05-08-00204-CR.
Opinion Filed October 10, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-43718-TN, F07-43720-LN.
Before Justices MORRIS, WHITTINGTON, and O'NEILL.
OPINION
Donald Joseph Scruggs waived a jury and pleaded guilty to evading arrest or detention while using a vehicle and to robbery. The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at ten years' and twenty years' imprisonment, respectively. In two issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to prison and the sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm the trial court's judgments. Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to prison terms, and the sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. Art. 1, § 13. Appellant contends the sentences are grossly disproportionate because he needs drug treatment and rehabilitation due to his longstanding drug addiction problems. 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 Constitutions. 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. Moreover, there is no evidence the sentences are cruel or unusual, and they are within the statutory punishment range for the offenses. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(a)(2), (b) (Vernon Supp. 2008); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). We conclude the trial court did not abused its discretion in sentencing appellant to a term in prison. We resolve appellant's issues against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.