Opinion
Nos. 05-09-00348-CR, 05-09-00349-CR, 05-09-00350-CR.
Opinion Filed April 29, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-35276-SN, F07-35278-SN, F07-35279-SN.
Before Justices O'NEILL, FRANCIS, and MURPHY.
OPINION
Donald Gene King waived a jury and pleaded guilty to three offenses of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a firearm. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 29.02(a)(2), 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2003). After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at fifty years' imprisonment in two cases and sixty years' imprisonment in one case. In three issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to imprisonment in each case. We affirm the trial court's judgments. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated the objectives of the Texas Penal Code by sentencing him to long prison terms instead of probation with treatment for his drug addiction. Appellant asserts he only committed the robberies to obtain money to buy drugs, and maintains the presentence investigation report reviewed by the trial court showed he was a good candidate for successful rehabilitation if he received treatment for his drug addiction and mental health issues. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing him to terms in prison. Appellant did not complain about the sentences either at the time they were imposed or in his motions 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.) (for error to be preserved for appeal, the record must show appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion). After sentencing, appellant did not object to the sentences, and his motions for new trial complained that the "verdicts" were contrary to the law and the evidence. Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for our review. Even if appellant had preserved error, however, his arguments still fail. As a general rule, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for the offense is not excessive or unconstitutionally cruel or unusual. Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). In this case, the trial court imposed punishment within the statutory range for the offenses. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 29.03(b) (Vernon 2003). We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the fifty and sixty-year sentences. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (as long as a sentence is within the proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal). We resolve appellant's three issues against him. In each case, we affirm the trial court's judgment.