Opinion
No. 05-06-00731-CR
February 21, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F05-60791-WP.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, FRANCIS, and LANG.
OPINION
Francisco Javier Acosta waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a firearm. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2003). The trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years' imprisonment. In two issues, appellant contends the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm. Appellant argues the trial court imposed a grossly disproportionate and inappropriate sentence in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 13. Appellant asserts the robbery was his friend's idea and had it not been for appellant's heroin use, he would not have committed the offense. The State responds that appellant did not preserve his complaint for appellate review and, alternatively, the sentence does not violate the United States or Texas Constitution. Appellant did not complain about the 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 has not preserved his complaints, we resolve his issues against him. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.