Opinion
No. 05-08-01140-CR
Opinion Filed March 30, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F08-56808-HN.
Before Justices RICHTER, LANG, and MURPHY.
OPINION
Howard Earl Lowe waived a jury and pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at less than $1500, enhanced with two prior theft convictions. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(D) (Vernon Supp. 2008). The trial court assessed punishment at eighteen months confinement in a state jail facility. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court violated his due process rights by sentencing him to prison and the sentence violates the objectives of the penal code. We affirm. In his first point of error, appellant contends the trial court did not consider all the punishment options available, thereby violating his due process rights. Appellant asserts the trial court ignored his explanation for why he committed the offense and his sincere desire for rehabilitation. In his second point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated the objectives of the Texas Penal Code by sentencing him to a prison term, rather than placing him on probation, because the sentence was not necessary to prevent the recurrence of any criminal behavior. Appellant asserts the evidence shows he only committed the offense to get money to provide food for his wife and child. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the record does not support his claims. 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. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.35 (Vernon 2003); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). There is nothing in the record that shows the trial court did not consider the full range of punishment before imposing the sentence. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the sentence. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). We overrule appellant's second point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.