Opinion
No. 05-08-01583-CR
Opinion Filed May 26, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F08-51242-T.
Before Justices MORRIS, RICHTER, and LANG-MIERS.
OPINION
Christopher Darnel Haynes waived a jury and pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount of four grams or more, but less than 200 grams. The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, at fifteen years' imprisonment and a $2500 fine. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to prison. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant argues the punishment assessed by the trial court violates the objectives of the penal code because it is not necessary to prevent a likely recurrence of his criminal behavior and does not meet the objective of rehabilitation. Appellant asserts he should have received probation and treatment for his addiction to marijuana and alcohol. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review and, alternatively, the record shows the trial court properly exercised its discretion in assessing a prison sentence and did not violate the objectives of the Texas Penal Code. Appellant 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.). Moreover, the trial court imposed punishment within the statutory range for the offense. See Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (d) (Vernon 2003); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.32 (Vernon 2008); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the fifteen-year prison term. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). We overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.