From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garza v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Mar 22, 2005
Nos. 05-04-00715-CR, 05-04-00716-CR, 05-04-00717-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 22, 2005)

Opinion

Nos. 05-04-00715-CR, 05-04-00716-CR, 05-04-00717-CR.

Opinion Filed March 22, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F03-01064-Wt; F03-01531-St; F03-01864-KT. Affirm.

Before Justices WRIGHT, MOSELEY, and LANG.


OPINION


In three issues, Gabriel Joseph Garza claims the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum penalties on three offenses. We decide appellant's issues against him and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. FACTUAL CONTEXT

Garza pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft, stalking, and burglary of a habitation with intent to commit assault. The trial court accepted appellant's pleas and found the evidence sufficient to prove appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In each case, the trial court deferred adjudicating appellant guilty, placed him on ten years' community supervision, and assessed a $1500 fine. Subsequently, the State filed motions to proceed with adjudication of guilt, alleging appellant violated the terms of his probation. At the hearing on the motions, appellant pleaded true to the allegations and testified to violating his probation. The trial court accepted appellant's pleas of true and found the allegations in the State's motions to be true. The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him to twenty years' confinement for each burglary offense and ten years' confinement for the stalking offense.

II. APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS

Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in assessing the maximum punishment in these cases. Appellant maintains the trial court assessed punishment without giving due consideration to: (1) the absence of testimony from the complainant; (2) appellant's need for psychological counseling; and (3) the degree of appellant's transgressions.

III. ANALYSIS

Appellant did not complain about his sentences at the time they were imposed or in his motions for new trial. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1). To preserve an issue on appeal, there must be a timely objection that specifically states the legal basis for that objection. See Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). Because appellant raised his argument for the first time on appeal, any error is waived. See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 119-20 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Moreover, even had appellant's points been preserved, punishment assessed at the maximum statutory range does not necessarily constitute an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). Any sentence imposed by the trial court is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. The general rule is that a sentence within the statutory range will not be disturbed on appeal. Id. Appellant has offered no basis for his claim that the trial court abused its discretion other than the maximum sentences were imposed, the complainant did not testify, appellant's claimed actions were not of a degree to warrant the sentences, appellant needed counseling, and because the court sentenced him, he had no opportunity to make progress in his rehabilitation. However, at the revocation hearing, appellant acknowledged the range of punishment available to the trial court if the trial court found the allegations in the State's motions to be true. Notwithstanding, appellant entered an open plea of true and testified to violating the terms of his probation. Nothing in the record shows the trial judge did not consider all of the evidence before him or the full range of punishment. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing appellant.

IV. CONCLUSION

We resolve appellant's issues against him. We affirm the trial court's judgments.


Summaries of

Garza v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Mar 22, 2005
Nos. 05-04-00715-CR, 05-04-00716-CR, 05-04-00717-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 22, 2005)
Case details for

Garza v. State

Case Details

Full title:GABRIEL JOSEPH GARZA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Mar 22, 2005

Citations

Nos. 05-04-00715-CR, 05-04-00716-CR, 05-04-00717-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 22, 2005)