Opinion
Nos. 05-06-00464-CR, 05-06-00465-CR, 05-06-00466-CR, 05-06-00467-CR.
Opinion Filed December 12, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F04-59525-V, F05-54379-MV, F05-54380-NV, F05-54381-MV AFFIRM
Before Justices FITZGERALD, RICHTER, and FRANCIS
OPINION
Frank Rocha Medellin waived a jury and pleaded guilty to burglary of a building, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and possession of cocaine in an amount less than one gram. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 29.03(a), 30.02(a), 31.07(a) (Vernon 2003); Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (b) (Vernon 2003). The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by prior felony convictions, at twenty years' imprisonment in the burglary and unauthorized use cases, fifty years' imprisonment in the aggravated robbery case, and 180 days confinement in a state jail facility in the drug case. In two points of error, appellant contends the sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm the trial court's judgments. Appellant argues the trial court imposed grossly disproportionate and inappropriate sentences in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 13. Appellant asserts his drug addiction caused him to commit the offenses, and he should have received drug treatment. The State responds that appellant did not preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the sentences do not violate the United States or Texas Constitutions. 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.). Even constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, may be waived. Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Castaneda, 135 S.W.3d at 723. Because appellant has not preserved his complaints, we overrule his points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.