Opinion
No. 05-09-00198-CR
Opinion Filed March 4, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F08-63275-SN.
Before Justices RICHTER, LANG-MIERS, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Estaban Mejia, Jr. appeals from his conviction for aggravated robbery. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to ten years' imprisonment. We affirm the trial court's judgment. The background of this case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a firearm. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a) (Vernon 2003). After accepting appellant's plea, the trial court passed the case for sentencing. During the punishment hearing, and after reviewing the presentence investigation report, the trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated the objectives of the Texas Penal Code by sentencing him to prison because the sentence is not necessary to prevent a recurrence of his criminal behavior, and it does not take into consideration rehabilitation or appellant's remorse for committing the offense. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a prison sentence. Appellant did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in his 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.) (for error to be preserved for appeal, record must show appellant made timely request, objection, or motion). In his motion for new trial, he argued that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. As a result, 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 offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32(a), 29.03(b). We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the ten-year sentence. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (as long as sentence is within proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal). We overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.