Opinion
No. 05-16-00588-CR
05-11-2017
TRENT LEE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-0845216
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Fillmore, Whitehill, and Boatright
Opinion by Justice Whitehill
The trial court sentenced appellant to fifteen years imprisonment after he violated the terms of his community supervision for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Appellant argues in a single issue that the trial court abused its discretion in assessing this sentence.
We conclude that appellant's issue was not preserved for our review. Moreover, even had it had been preserved, appellant's sentence is not excessive because it is within the statutorily prescribed punishment range. We thus affirm the trial court's judgment.
I. Background
After shoplifting at Wal-Mart, appellant ran over an employee's leg with his car when she attempted to confront him. Appellant was charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. In accordance with the plea bargain, the trial court did not adjudicate guilt and placed appellant on ten years community supervision with a $1,000 fine.
After appellant violated the terms of his community supervision, the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. Appellant entered a non-negotiated plea of true to violating the ten conditions alleged by the State. The trial court accepted appellant's plea, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment. Although appellant requested a lesser sentence during closing argument, he did not object to the pronounced sentence or complain about it in a motion for new trial. This appeal followed.
II. Analysis
Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to fifteen years imprisonment. According to appellant, the sentence reflects that the trial court focused more on punitive measures than "the objectives of rehabilitation."
Appellant's issue, however, was not preserved for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1; Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (as a general rule, appellant may not assert error pertaining to his sentence or punishment when he failed to object or otherwise raise such error in the trial court).
A sentencing issue may be preserved by objecting when the sentence is imposed or in a motion for new trial. See Castenda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.).
Here, appellant did not object to his sentence at any stage in the process or raise the issue in a motion for new trial. He nonetheless claims that the issue was preserved because he requested, during closing argument, that he be sent to a substance abuse facility, and the sentence imposed demonstrates that the trial court denied his request. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Appellant's request was made before the trial court imposed sentence. And when the trial court asked if there was any reason why [appellant] should not be sentenced, appellant's counsel responded "No legal reason." Because appellant failed to assert a timely objection to his sentence, the alleged error was not preserved for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1.
Moreover, had the error been preserved, there is no indication that the trial court abused its discretion in assessing the sentence. Appellant's crime, aggravated robbery, is a first-degree felony punishable by life or a term of five to ninety-nine years imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §29.03(b), 12.32(a). As long as the punishment is within the range prescribed by the legislature in a valid statute, the punishment is not excessive, cruel, or unusual. Davis v. State, 323 S.W.3d 190, 196 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref'd). Appellant's sentence is within and at the lower end of the statutory range.
We thus resolve appellant's sole issue against him and affirm the trial court's judgment.
/Bill Whitehill/
BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE Do Not publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
160588F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-0845216.
Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Fillmore and Boatright participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered May 11, 2017.