Opinion
Nos. 05-10-00050-CR, 05-10-00051-CR, 05-10-00052-CR
Opinion issued June 29, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-20897-T, F09-56192-T, F09-56228-T.
Before Justices O'NEILL, FRANCIS, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Eric Paul Bradix appeals his convictions for aggravated kidnapping and possession of cocaine and 3,4 methylenedioxy methamphetamine. In three issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a prison term in each case. We affirm the trial court's judgments. In the aggravated kidnapping, appellant waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty. Following the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for five years, and assessed a $1000 fine. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant committed two new offenses and other violations of the terms of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motion. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at six years in prison. In the same proceeding, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and possession of 3,4 methylenedioxy methamphetamine in amounts less than one gram. After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at two years confinement in a state jail facility in each case, and assessed a $1500 fine in the possession of cocaine case. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to imprisonment in each case because the evidence shows the trial court gave no consideration to the probation department's recommendation that he receive additional drug treatment. Appellant asserts the sentences violate the objectives of the penal code and are merely punitive. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the record does not show that his sentences violate the objectives of the penal code. 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 sentences, and he did not file a motion for new trial in any of the cases. Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for our review. Even if appellant had preserved error, however, his argument still fails. 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. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 12.35 (Vernon 2003). Moreover, other than counsel's closing argument, nothing in the record shows the probation department recommended appellant be continued on probation with drug treatment or that the trial court believed counsel's assertion. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the 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 resolve appellant's three issues against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.