Nor are we prepared to apply the standards developed for reviewing civil punitive damage awards to the review of criminal punishment. See Churitch v. State, 888 S.W.2d 911, 911 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no writ) (holding intermediate appellant courts must follow the court of criminal appeals's pronouncements on matters concerning the enforcement of criminal laws). Moreover, the trial court assessed a sentence within the statutory range for aggravated robbery which complies with the penal code's objectives.
We may not apply a different analysis to a court of criminal appeals' pronouncement lest we overstep our power as an intermediate appellate court. See Churitch v. State, 888 S.W.2d 911, 911 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no pet.); McGlothlin v. State, 705 S.W.2d 851, 862 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 749 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988). For this reason, we decline appellant's invitation to review Thompson v. State under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.