Opinion
Nos. 05-09-00720-CR, 05-09-00721-CR, 05-09-00722-CR
Opinion Filed March 31, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F08-62511-IM, F08-73595-TM, F08-73679-TM.
Before Justices RICHTER, LANG-MIERS, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Roberto Arriaga appeals from three convictions for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to imprisonment. We affirm the trial court's judgments. The background of these cases and the evidence admitted 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 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.
In each case, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a firearm. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a) (Vernon 2003). Appellant also pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph contained in each indictment. The trial court found the enhancement paragraph true and assessed punishment at twenty-five years' imprisonment and a $5000 fine in each case.
In his sole point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated the objectives of the Texas Penal Code by sentencing him to prison because the sentences were not necessary to prevent the recurrence of his criminal behavior. Appellant asserts that because he only drove the vehicle and his accomplice handled the gun, he was remorseful for helping in the robberies, and he has drug problems, the trial court should have considered probation and drug treatment in assessing punishment. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the record does not support his claims.
Appellant did not complain about the sentences either at the time they were imposed or in 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.) (for error to be preserved for appeal, the record must show appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion). After sentencing, appellant did not object to the sentence. Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for our review.
Even if appellant had preserved error, however, his arguments still fail. As a general rule, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for the offense is not excessive or unconstitutionally cruel or unusual. Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). In this case, the trial court imposed punishment within the statutory range for the offenses enhanced by a prior felony conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.42(c)(1), 29.03(a) (Vernon 2003 Supp. 2009).
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the twenty-five-year sentences. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (as long as a sentence is within the proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal). We overrule appellant's sole point of error.
In each case, we affirm the trial court's judgment.