Opinion
No. 05-08-01079-CR
Opinion Filed July 31, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F07-56908-KQ.
Before Justices WRIGHT, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.
OPINION
Louis Charles Baker waived a jury and pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine in an amount less than one gram. The trial court assessed punishment at eighteen months confinement in a state jail facility. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court violated his due process rights and abused its discretion by sentencing him to prison. We affirm. In his first point of error, appellant contends the trial court did not consider his mental health issues before sentencing him to state jail, thereby violating his due process rights. In his second point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated the rehabilitation objectives of the Texas Penal Code by sentencing him to a term in state jail because the sentence was not necessary to prevent the recurrence of any criminal behavior. Appellant asserts the evidence shows he only committed the offense to get money for gas. 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 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.). Moreover, the trial court imposed punishment within the statutory range for the offense. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.35 (Vernon 2003); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). There is nothing in the record that shows the trial court did not consider appellant's testimony about his mental health issues. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the sentence. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). We overrule appellant's two points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.