Opinion
No. 05-05-00569-CR
Opinion Filed November 18, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F03-72279-VT. Affirm.
Before Justices MORRIS, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.
OPINION
Isiah Jermaine Garrett waived a jury trial and entered a negotiated guilty plea to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 29.02, 29.03 (Vernon 2003). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $1000 fine. The trial court also made an affirmative finding that appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon, a firearm, during commission of the offense. The State later moved to proceed with adjudication of guilt, alleging appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced him to thirty years imprisonment. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render judgment and the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm. In his first point of error, appellant argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and render judgment because the indictment was returned in the 292nd Judicial District Court, but there is no order transferring the case to the 283rd Judicial District Court. The State responds that appellant failed to file a plea to the court's jurisdiction and, thus, has waived his complaint. We agree with the State. Appellant did not raise this issue in the trial court at the time he was placed on probation. Consequently, appellant's complaint is untimely. See Sharkey v. State, 994 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.). We dismiss appellant's first point of error. In his second point, appellant argues the thirty-year sentence is cruel and unusual punishment and grossly disproportionate to the crime. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII. The State responds that appellant has not preserved his complaint. We agree the complaint is not preserved. Appellant did not complain about his 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.). Even constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, may be waived. Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Castaneda, 135 S.W.3d at 723. We overrule appellant's second point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.