Opinion
No. 05-15-00826-CR
01-27-2016
On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 219-82308-2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Fillmore
A jury convicted Quiency Lajoshua Davis of burglary of a building. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1) (West 2011). The trial court assessed punishment at two years' confinement in state jail and a $10,000 fine. In a single issue, Davis contends the punishment violates the objectives of the penal code. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Davis argues the trial court abused its discretion by assessing the maximum term of imprisonment and the maximum fine because that punishment violates the "objectives of the system of prohibitions, penalties, and correctional measures" in the Texas Penal Code. Davis asserts the trial court sentenced him without considering the full range of punishment options or rehabilitation possibilities. Davis argues the trial court did not consider his mitigating evidence that he had recently lost his mother, could not afford a phone, and had grown up in an impoverished, gang-infested area.
Davis did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in a 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.) (to preserve error, appellant must make a timely request, objection, or motion). As a result, Davis has not preserved the issue for our review.
Additionally, as a general rule, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for an offense is not excessive or unconstitutionally cruel or unusual. See Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). Burglary of a building is a state jail felony offense. The punishment range is confinement in state jail for a term not less than 180 days or more than two years and an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.35, 30.02(c)(1). Davis's two-year state jail sentence and $10,000 fine are within the statutory range.
Finally, nothing in the record reflects the trial court failed to consider Davis's mitigating evidence or the full statutory range of punishment. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by assessing the sentence in this case. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). We overrule Davis's sole issue.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
/Robert M. Fillmore/
ROBERT M. FILLMORE
JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47 150826F.U05
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 219-82308-2014).
Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, Justices Myers and Whitehill participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered January 27, 2016.